Connverting old video hi8 and VHS Advice on good converters

[thedot]

A few years ago i bought an analog to digital converter (on Ebay) that came with Ulead video editing on a Dvd,It worked fine on my PC but i did not know much about digital video formats then or much about USB,problem was I could not find a new driver for my new OS windows 7
Over the years my capture device could not be used with my upgrade of my carillon music computer due to this.So i decided to buy a new one off of Ebay,another cheap one which also connected via the USB but the quality was not that great..In the beginning buying a computer,I did not know that much about them as I do now.
I am a musician and I know more about playing the guitar than computers ,but I learned over time mainly by mistake.
I am looking now for an analog composite to digital firewire or thunderbolt converter to convert my old VHS via the VCR and my hi8 tapes via my old camera.
I found two converters; the Canopus/Grass Valley ADVC-300 and ADVC 100 an video converters but then learned that these are old converters by looking at reviews on amazon..
Does any one know of any new converters for a macbook pro OS x EL capitan 10.11.1.
That can convert from composite analog to digital?
Also professional leads for the composite for quality.
Thank you

[Newbie 332]

I personally use a hauppauge hd pvr 2 that I got off ebay for $90 shipped and do quick edits with videoredo for h264 editing. Works like a charm for me. Quality is great IMO. I am sure there are others with better options but that setup works for me. Good luck!

[smrpix]

A Digital 8 camera or deck with passthrough will handle all your needs. Feeds the VHS through the camera, play the Hi8 directly in the camera. The result will be the same as with the canopus.

There are no updated devices because the technology hasn't changed in years. By the time SD video was transitioning to HD the technology was as perfected as it's going to get.

[LMotlow]

A Digital 8 camera or deck with passthrough will handle all your needs. Feeds the VHS through the camera, play the Hi8 directly in the camera. The result will be the same as with the canopus.

There are no updated devices because the technology hasn't changed in years. By the time SD video was transitioning to HD the technology was as perfected as it's going to get.

True. DV hasn't changed since the Pentium-3 and P3 Celerons, still stuck stuck in the win98/CRT era. However, SD video has moved up to BluRay compliance in multiple formats and MPEG is still the broadcast standard. Unfortunately DV is not real pretty when made from VHS, is PC-only playback, has no internet support, and no player support outside of a PC. VHS to consumer grade DV via Canopus is not the first choice of experience unless you have no cleanup aspirations and prefer VHS noise au naturel, accentuated with an ample serving of DV compression artifacts, thereby making VHS and DV both look worse than either of them should.

Why keep keep kidding newbies about how great analog to DV capture is? Likely he's not up to doing it any other way, despite other capture devices and methods that are around -- but continuing to flaunt DV as the "the best there is" is misleading hype. If poor VHS quality and defects are eye candy to the O.P., why not go directly to MPG or an h264 format instead of re-encoding from lossy, noisy DV? That's where he'll have to go anyway, and two lossy encodes are not better than one.

And you never know, folks: The O.P.'s standards might be higher than yours. I wouldn't count it in today's environment, but it's a real possibility.

[smrpix]

No one's claiming DV is the be-all and end-all of quality. Simply saying that to get better quality than DV ramps up the cost and time precipitously with rapidly decreasing incremental quality improvement.

But it's moot.

The bigger issue is modern macbooks don't even have a DV input. So OP is looking at blackmagic intensity or matrox mini as a relatively low-cost capture device. (Or a crappy, worse-than-DV USB solution.) A TBC still needs to be placed between the source player and the capture box.

Obviously Lagarith and Avisynth are also not mac-friendly, so capturing directly to ProRes probably makes sense.

[LMotlow]

That's all true. And I should have added, a Mac isn't the best tool for analog tape capture and is a poor restoration tool for old VHS tapes. -- and for that matter, not even for DV capture. It's likely the O.P. wouldn't take the "proper" route anyway. Why should all of this have to be repeated when it's been talked to death in videohelp and elsewhere? Now Black Magic has entered the picture, and that subject has been been run through the mill, too.

There's some confusion about the owner's OS. The profile says XP SP3, but post #1 says he has a new Win7 OS, and suddenly a Macbook shows up. I'd say use Win7. At least he'd have a fighting chance over working with a Mac and the poor quality of average VHS tapes.

No one's claiming DV is the be-all and end-all of quality. Simply saying that to get better quality than DV ramps up the cost and time precipitously with rapidly decreasing incremental quality improvement.

It's been shown that quality improvement that can be made with VHS, even from a DV capture, is considerable. It's been shown again and again and again. Anybody who can't make major improvements in crappy VHS -- even from a DV capture -- doesn't know what they're doing, or is uninterested in doing it, or doesn't have time or resources.

DV might be the owner's only practical choice, and I suspect that a major quality effort is not what he's after. So be it. But poor quality is already one of his complaints, so let's not paint a gorgeous picture of the results he'll get. They'll likely be better than what he was getting, and might be good enough to suit or might not. That's up to the owner.

Yeah, there are bad cheapie USB capture gadgets, but there are also very good ones. Either way, the owner won't know until either a USB device, a DV device, or a pvr is tried. At least a good DV camera might have tbc capability, which hasn't even been mentioned yet as needed for VHS transfer. That camera could be the easiest route for someone in a rush, I agree. Typically most users are happy just to get an image that moves and makes sounds. If that's the level we're working with here, DV is the way to go. But doing it with a Mac? We've seen that, too. Nobody would recommend it for VHS if Win7 is available.

[thedot]

First of all, I would like to thank all who have bothered to help me with this.
I bought a cheap analog to digital converter on eBay,it was not a well-known brand ,i used it with my PC but it was not compatible with my pinnacle and sony vegas video editing software's so i used it as a stand alone to upload the footage to then convert to pinnacle or sony.
It wasn't very good quality so i decided later because of other problems to buy an ion video2pc..To link an old analog hi8 Panasonic to the PC
It worked fine ,so I saved all my old tapes to my peripheral hard drive ,but again the quality was not that good but it sufficed at the time.
I recently bought a new MacBook and wanted to inquire whether i could find something better to connect the Hi8 old camera via the component output.
I do not understand why they haven't introduced a pro player that can play all old tapes;VHS,DV,Hi8 that can then also correct the quality...I have researched the Canopus and only the expensive one apparently gives you good quality results.The problem is i have now found out that none of the video files i have saved to the peripheral hard drive open with final cut pro on my Macbook.I recently uploaded one video via the ion video2pc but the quality again was not that good,it pixelates....I have a lot of footage that i have uploaded over time to my peripheral hard drive so i would rather not do it all again but saying that now i have got a MacBook I wanted to get the best quality,So i thought there might be a good converter that can improve on the quality of the VHS,Hi8,DV tapes etc...To be honest i do not really want to buy a new converter i would rather use the one i have.I think i made a mistake in the preferences to download the vdieo from the old Hi8 camera which is why it pixelated obviously the format i decided upon was not sufficient....But saying that i am not really a novice,i have spent over ten years learning all i know hands on without any advice until now.I am an old film maker from the cine camera era,Also at the moment i am uploading old cine standard 8 and super 8 footage via a projector and lumix HD camera using a white board as a screen you lose a bit of quality doing it like this but it's cheaper than getting it done by a company that will charge you 80 pounds/over 100 dollars to do the job.....I might have a look and see what i can do on my PC...Maybe if i save them in the industry standard format such as mpg4 through sony vegas or pinnacle,it seems that some formats do not upload to final cut pro or Imovie which you would think they would take into consideration with newer up to date software...But like with Cubase i learned that they are not selling you a product like in the old days when you paid for what you get,now they sell you a software that keeps having to have upgrades.Since Cubase started And Komplete they have had 8,9,10 updates and each update costs you about 150 pounds.So if you think about it you think your buying a great cheap music software for 400 pound but infact in the long run over the years it ends up much more than just 400 pounds more like thousands over the years...And they do it with everything you buy in software...So thier selling you a product that is not completed,in theory you should have a device where you can create music with a software that is like an analog studio because once you pay for an analog studio you do not need to upgrade it....So there is the con...Along with film editing software..I know a film editor who worked on the alien films and other films at pinewood..The old editing with celuloid was quite simple but also complex but you never needed an upgrade....The digital age is great,i've studied specail effects over many years and now the CGI is truly phenominal but in the digital age people get conned riped off by peoples selling them a device they know nothing about...Thanks for your help i will consider the options..

[thedot]

Newbie332..... The hauppauge hd pvr 2 does not have a component input,I need an analog component input to input from a vcr or my hi8 camera.

[Newbie 332]

Newbie332..... The hauppauge hd pvr 2 does not have a component input,I need an analog component input to input from a vcr or my hi8 camera.

It comes with a dongle that converts component to a different connector. See link below. Just make sure what you buy actually comes with the piece and the person didn't lose it somewhere along the lines.

http://hauppauge.com/site/products/data_hdpvr2.html

Edit - You can allways go with the older HD PVR which I had and worked great, the 2 gives ability to record hdmi down the road if needed. The regular HD PVR has component on the back and recorded great quality IMO.

[SameSelf]

True. DV hasn't changed since the Pentium-3 and P3 Celerons, still stuck stuck in the win98/CRT era. However, SD video has moved up to BluRay compliance in multiple formats and MPEG is still the broadcast standard. Unfortunately DV is not real pretty when made from VHS, is PC-only playback, has no internet support, and no player support outside of a PC. VHS to consumer grade DV via Canopus is not the first choice of experience unless you have no cleanup aspirations and prefer VHS noise au naturel, accentuated with an ample serving of DV compression artifacts, thereby making VHS and DV both look worse than either of them should.

Your comments have me wondering. Many years ago now, I captured all my Hi8 video via a Canopus ADVC-300 (still have the little bugger) into DV-AVI using PPro. The camcorder had S-Video out, and no TBC was necessary. If I understand you correctly, a higher quality workflow would involve capture to h264 (actually that would defeat any post processing), or ideally, I guess, to a near lossless codec like Lagarith? I thoroughly understand that DV technology is probably a decade old. But like smrpix, I didn't think there was a way to improve my Hi8 captures, and I thought that DV-AVI was pretty far up the curve. Thanks.

[LMotlow]

If I understand you correctly, a higher quality workflow would involve capture to h264 (actually that would defeat any post processing), or ideally, I guess, to a near lossless codec like Lagarith?

Two corrections, if you don't mind. I didn't recommend h264 except as a high-bitrate alternative, especially if you're going from capture directly to final format. If you want to do any cleanup, h264 isn't the way to go. I know people do it. That's their business. h264's are final delivery formats. Like MPEG, it's an inter-frame format not designed for "editing" unless edit means simple cuts and joins with smart-rendering editors.

Lagarith isn't near-lossless. It's lossless.

I thoroughly understand that DV technology is probably a decade old. But like smrpix, I didn't think there was a way to improve my Hi8 captures, and I thought that DV-AVI was pretty far up the curve.

It's preferred over more lossy captures, so with a good player and a good card it's an improvement over that. If you want anything other than cut-and-join work, DV will be re-encoded again for anything like denoising, color work, or fancy image features like transitions and title overlays, etc., unless it's decoded to lossless for that kind of work. One way or another DV has to be re-encoded again if you want anything beyond PC play.

Most people don't take the lossless route. We all know it and we know why. Time and labor aside, lossless is still the most workable medium for analog input. But if you just want to take lossless as-is, make some simple cuts and go directly to a final encode, lossless is a waste of time.

[smrpix]

At least a good DV camera might have tbc capability, which hasn't even been mentioned yet as needed for VHS transfer.

Here we agree. To my mind, a TBC is the single most important factor in making VHS look acceptable -- that's one reason I'm so quick to recommend a D8 camera (TBC'd DV output) whenever 8mm or Hi8 is mentioned.

[SameSelf]

If I understand you correctly, a higher quality workflow would involve capture to h264 (actually that would defeat any post processing), or ideally, I guess, to a near lossless codec like Lagarith?

Two corrections, if you don't mind. I didn't recommend h264 except as a high-bitrate alternative, especially if you're going from capture directly to final format. If you want to do any cleanup, h264 isn't the way to go. I know people do it. That's their business. h264's are final delivery formats. Like MPEG, it's an inter-frame format not designed for "editing" unless edit means simple cuts and joins with smart-rendering editors.

Lagarith isn't near-lossless. It's lossless.

I thoroughly understand that DV technology is probably a decade old. But like smrpix, I didn't think there was a way to improve my Hi8 captures, and I thought that DV-AVI was pretty far up the curve.

It's preferred over more lossy captures, so with a good player and a good card it's an improvement over that. If you want anything other than cut-and-join work, DV will be re-encoded again for anything like denoising, color work, or fancy image features like transitions and title overlays, etc., unless it's decoded to lossless for that kind of work. One way or another DV has to be re-encoded again if you want anything beyond PC play.

Most people don't take the lossless route. We all know it and we know why. Time and labor aside, lossless is still the most workable medium for analog input. But if you just want to take lossless as-is, make some simple cuts and go directly to a final encode, lossless is a waste of time.

Cool. I appreciate the explanations. Not sure how I got it in my head that Lagarith was near lossless.

Lossless captures. Determining the optimal workflow in video is never easy. I guess it all comes down to what sort of format you want your masters in. My DV-AVI captures are 30-35 mbit/s. Not a fat bitrate, but then again, if I understand your comments correctly, not a very efficient one either. I guess capturing to a edit friendly format like MPEG-Intra, ProRes, or DNxHD would be ideal. I wonder if I could turn my Atomos Ninja into an analog capture device? What devices are capable of this? Never thought about that before. But, I agree; lossless masters are a waste of space. Any time I get a hold of analog video, I immediately de-interlace with QTGMC which, like you point out, necessarily involves a re-encode. IOW, for my workflows, lossless is fine for intermediates, but unacceptable for masters. So, the only room for improvement that I see is somehow upgrading to a more professional capture codec.

EDIT: Well, after a quick web search, those devices do exist. Only problem is they are pro/broadcast level equipment and $$$.

[PuzZLeR]

I use lossless for all analog capture, but still find DV is a good middle-of-the-road solution if I wanted to.

I really don't get all this DV bashing.

Sure it's 4:1:1 (in NTSC), but VHS is something like 4:very small:very small. Sure you can have problems encoding DV to 4:2:0 formats, like DvD, but it's only really a decoding issue that can be corrected. Sure it's old, but so's the capture tech available today for VHS capture, and hasn't improved in a decade so DV's age isn't an issue. And of course media players don't play it. They don't play lossless either. But these are "acquisition formats" or archival formats, not "delivery formats". We all know we'd need to encode it to something else anyway for playback.

And if you want to do post processing, I'd rather do it with DV than with MPEG-2, of which the latter degrades considerably each subsequent conversion - much more so than DV.

And I see more blocks in high bitrate MPEG-2 than with DV.

Lossless is still king, yes, but DV is a good secondary solution IMO. And the Canopus is a solid and reliable tool that still works very well today.

[SameSelf]

I use lossless for all analog capture, but still find DV is a good middle-of-the-road solution if I wanted to.

I really don't get all this DV bashing.

Sure it's 4:1:1 (in NTSC), but VHS is something like 4:very small:very small. Sure you can have problems encoding DV to 4:2:0 formats, like DvD, but it's only really a decoding issue that can be corrected. Sure it's old, but so's the capture tech available today for VHS capture, and hasn't improved in a decade so DV's age isn't an issue. And of course media players don't play it. They don't play lossless either. But these are "acquisition formats" or archival formats, not "delivery formats". We all know we'd need to encode it to something else anyway for playback.

And if you want to do post processing, I'd rather do it with DV than with MPEG-2, of which the latter degrades considerably each subsequent conversion - much more so than DV.

And I see more blocks in high bitrate MPEG-2 than with DV.

Lossless is still king, yes, but DV is a good secondary solution IMO. And the Canopus is a solid and reliable tool that still works very well today.

Very reasonable thoughts. No question analog capture is a space where YMMV. If hard drive space is not a constraint, than I agree, lossless is an unbeatable option. I have nothing but praise for my Canopus ADVC-300 captures. Drop free captures with no audio sync problems every time. But my tapes are high quality Hi8 via S-Video, so again YMMV. To me the bigger problem with analog video is interlacing in our 4K/HD native progressive world.

[pippas]

Lossless is still king, yes, but DV is a good secondary solution IMO. And the Canopus is a solid and reliable tool that still works very well today.

+1 from me on that...

[LMotlow]

I use lossless for all analog capture, but still find DV is a good middle-of-the-road solution if I wanted to.

That's what I said. I did it once myself. But hassling with VHS defects and DV noise at the same time ain't a road I'll take again.

I have nothing but praise for my Canopus ADVC-300 captures. Drop free captures with no audio sync problems every time.

IF you had those problems with analog to lossless capture, you did something wrong. It never happened to me, and I've been using All In Wonders since my first Pentium 3. I use modern CPU's today with the same cards.

I'd rather do it with DV than with MPEG-2, of which the latter degrades considerably each subsequent conversion - much more so than DV.

Sure, that's a no brainer. But people still work with MPEG captures. I don't know why. For anything other then simple edits, DV won't degrade at all if it's worked as lossless. If you want quality cleanup tools like Avisynth you'll have to go lossless anyway.

You can get the pro studio stuff, sure. Wish I could afford it. But Canopus ain't cheap either. There's still analog USB, PCI, and even old AGP stuff around. But you're right: a $30 cheapie would be a terrible choice.

[PuzZLeR]

I had a Canopus, and what I liked about it was that it was solid. I have never had a glitch with it, ever. With lossless and ATI I've had my hiccups. It's not as simple as just hooking up a firewire cable and go.

And the quality from the Canopus was more than adequate. And any editor worth its salt can handle DV very well, and in smart render modes, easily.

Sure the quality of lossless is better than DV, and sure DV is a rather "fixed" format with limited flexibility, and yeah, noisy, and sure the Canopus is indeed a rather overpriced tool that does only one thing in only one format, and sure I too am not going back to DV. It's just that I can't criticize anyone with good conscience that applying the Canopus/DV solution would be a "bad idea".

And the only advantage IMO of capturing direct-to-MPEG-2 is file size and/or direct-to-DvD-playback (depending on specs used).

No question analog capture is a space where YMMV.

I agree. Digital is in direct numbers. Analog can produce results that can also be illogical in many ways, and subjective opinions are more rule than exception here. Which is why I will say that my posts here are greatly in the domain of my own opinion.

[thedot]

Thank you newbie 332 for all your helpful advice and to you all also for your help ,I will look into all the alternatives,I'm looking for quality in the conversion...Come to think of it I've always loved celluloid rather than VHS tape...I think to be honest celluloid film tends to capture a clearer image depending on the lens and the lighting...But still far superior to any video tape...The same goes for stop motion animation,Some CGI looks too plastic..Thanks again..

[Newbie 332]

Thank you newbie 332 for all your helpful advice and to you all also for your help ,I will look into all the alternatives,I'm looking for quality in the conversion...Come to think of it I've always loved celluloid rather than VHS tape...I think to be honest celluloid film tends to capture a clearer image depending on the lens and the lighting...But still far superior to any video tape...The same goes for stop motion animation,Some CGI looks too plastic..Thanks again..

thedot - no problem. In the past I bought a digital 8 camcorder (a sony) with a 1394 output for the highest quality I could get IMO. Then I used Adobe Premiere to capture and edit. I have long since tossed that camcorder unfortunately. Honestly, life is too short IMO to waste time getting every last pixel. Just grab it and be done with it Good Luck.