VHS to MiniDV, VCR and Pal detailer?

[zjiup]

Dear anyone

I'm new here and confused already...
My aim is to save over a hundred VHS-C cassettes and about 20 VHS cassettes on MiniDV tapes. The material is PAL (I live in Europe) and 95% SP. It would be nice to get the material on DVD as well. Does it sound crazy to capture the restored material on MiniDV in Final Cut, make an uncompressed file and burn it to DVD? I can use a lot of time to these processes, the main thing is to save as much detail as possible.

I have Panasonic AG-DVC30E and there is RCA (and s-video) input connection in the camera. The VHS material is recorded to MiniDV at 720x576, 25fps with RCA cable. I use AVT-8710 and it seems to fix VHS quality problems better with a crappy(?) Funai 29A-850 VCR from the early 2000s than with AKAI VS-F600EO from early 90s or late 80s. But I have played cassettes through a SCART-RCA adapter because that seems to be the only way to get the image out of those VCRs, so I'm afraid that quality is reduced? Do I need a VCR with RCA output or something to not use scart? I happen to own a Telefunken 1900M video recorder which may be good for VHS-C digitizing if I had a DIN+RCA cable?

I think a detailer would be needed too because VHS outlines are disturbing (would be good to get the video sharper). I contacted SignVideo via email and asked politely whether DR1000 Image Enhancer is compatible with PAL material or not but they didn't answer. I'm aware of threads here concerning DR1000 compatibility with PAL but I'm still uncertain. If I understand correctly, it once was compatible with PAL too but not anymore? Would Vidicraft be the second best option in general or what would be? Of course I can't afford thousands to one gear. I also need to purchase a proc amp but it's not a problem, I think. Could You please give your opinions on this issue.

[sanlyn]

SignVideo is the successor to former VidCraft outfit. AFAIK, SignVideo no longer makes its proc amps and video enhancer. They were durable units and are found on auction sites now and then. Most people who own and still use them don't want to let them go. Whether they're compatible with PAL, I frankly don't know. I used them for NTSC, never with PAL.

In any case, if you're of a mind that you will somehow increase quality by "enhancing" VHS and MiniDV, you're on the wrong track. You've already compromised the quality of your VHS by encoding them to DV. DV originals are best transferred to a PC via Firewire, which really makes an unaltered copy of the DV source. VHS should be captured to lossless or losslesslly compressed AVI (with help from huffyuv or Lagarith), then cleaned up in lossless media before encoding to lossy formats. Capturing VHS directly to lossy encodes is bad enough, but sharpening noise and "enhancing" VHS defects (which are numerous and always present, especially with a less than optimal VCR) makes it worse.

[2Bdecided]

What do you want to do?

I mean, what is the final destination of these VHS transfers? Only DVD? Or PC? Or DV tape? Or all three? If so, why?

I would happily use a DV camcorder for the transfer if it improved the picture quality (e.g. because it contains a half-decent line-TBC and/or some filtering). I would not copy onto DV tape, but simply pass through to PC and keep the DV-AVI captures on a HDD or two (for backup). That said, DV tape is cheap enough now if you want to use it for backup. Do DV camcorders let you record to tape and transfer into PC at the same time? If not, then you're doubling the time this tapes (VHS > DV-tape, DV-tape > PC DV-AVI file).

SCART > RCA (composite) is just an electrical connection. Do not worry about that. Unless it is a lousy adapter, it is doing no harm.

The ways of doing "better" include getting a better (S-VHS) VCR with TBC built-in, and getting a better (lossless) capture card. Would you actually see an improvement? That depends more than anything on how lucky you are - how well your tapes happen to play on one VCR or another. All other things being equal, lossless is better than DV (though only slightly better with a DV source, and any difference is invisible by the time you've burned to DVD), and a decent S-VHS deck is better than a random VHS deck (even for VHS tapes - but with your tapes you may have good luck with the VHS deck and bad luck with the S-VHS deck). If your DV camcorder doesn't include a line-TBC when digitising the analogue input signal, then you probably would do better with an S-VHS deck that includes a line-TBC (or some other piece of equipment in the chain that does).

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
David.

P.S. I cannot even begin to imagine why you would want to use analogue processing (sharpening and/or denoising) to "improve" your VHS signal - but that's because I spend far too many hours doing it digitally in AVIsynth.

[aedipuss]

a 1 hour vhs-c tape would take 13GB of space so you can't fit uncompressed DVavi onto dvd which only has 4.3GB. you would have to convert it to dvd spec mpeg-2 which is compressed, and then author it to dvd structure before creating playable dvds.

you could get hard drives and store the data files there. or buy a blu-ray burner and create blu-ray data backups of DVavi.

the more backups you have the better chance of not losing the material over time. best to get it off vhs while they still play ok.

scart can carry either normal composite or s-video depending on the machine. rca would be composite.

[zjiup]

Thank you for your prompt replies! The destination was actually all of them, dv tape and dvd especially. But I now understand that I tried to do the process backwards. I will try to look for a good S-VHS VCR because anything may be better than those devices I already have. The capture card seems to be a necessity too.

[Richard_G]

No it isn't, you do not need a capture card if transferring from DV camera to computer, you transfer over Firewire. As said you need a VHS player that outputs S-Video (which will be an S-VHS machine, Panasonic made some very good ones) and not composite to retain as much quality from the original tapes as possible. You can then record to DV tape and your camera may allow you to transfer to computer over Firewire simultaneously or you may have to play the recorded DV tape back later.

You are starting with an analogue signal on the C-VHS tapes which is being digitised when you convert to DV, you do not want to convert back to analogue again by using a capture card. Transfer over Firewire is just that, transferring a copy of the digital data on the DV tape to your hard drive. Once there, as DV-AVI, you can then encode to DVD compliant mpeg2 and make playable DVDs.

[sanlyn]

As said you need a VHS player that outputs S-Video (which will be an S-VHS machine, Panasonic made some very good ones) and not composite to retain as much quality from the original tapes as possible. You can then record to DV tape and your camera may allow you to transfer to computer over Firewire simultaneously or you may have to play the recorded DV tape back later.

Moving VHS to DV, you can forget all that crap about retaining quality. I've always wondered why so many posted video samples look so horrible and are nightmares to clean up, until I realized people are capturing VHS to DV or other lossy formats and thinking what a great idea it is. It's not a great idea, it's ridiculous. Rather than go from noisy tape to crappy DV and then to even crappier DVD, why not just go from noisy tape directly to crappy DVD? It's otherwise a waste of capturing and encoding time with VHS.

The purpose behind capturing VHS to lossless compression is to get better and more customized encodes and a wider choice of final formats, not to save time. If saving time is paramount, go directly from VHS to to your final product without intermediate steps. People must think that going through multiple encodes is like sending video thru WinZip and expecting to get back the same thing or something "better". It won't happen.

[2Bdecided]

Moving VHS to DV, you can forget all that crap about retaining quality.

You say this in every thread, but I've yet to see one sample that backs this up.

I can't do the comparison myself because I have no uncompressed capture device, but I bet someone out there has an ADVC110 or DV camcorder (though that's not entirely fair, as it will probably filter the analogue input) and also owns an uncompressed capture device. Maybe they could capture some sources (HiDef channel downconverted to S-video, S-VHS, VHS) and show us the difference?


What I have compared is DV vs DVD capture, and even though I could see the increased blocking on the DVD capture, it wasn't as bad as I expected. I even compared DV > AVIsynth > DVD, vs DVD > AVIsynth > DVD, and I didn't think the difference would worry many people. The choice of MPEG-2 encoder when authoring the final DVD was more important, and of course the choice of VCR and capture device was even more important. The initial degradation of the DVD capture was pretty much wiped out in AVIsynth, and the final degradation of interlaced MPEG-2 encoding was there on both (if you're picky enough to notice it).


I can of course believe that if you freeze frame DV vs uncompressed and blow it up to 400% size there will be visible differences. What I can't believe is that, by the time you are watching it on the destination format, there are visible differences (unless the VHS source was more noise than signal, which can drive DV nuts).

Cheers,
David.

[sanlyn]

Maybe you need more samples of VHS noise to look at. I see them all the time. To say that you see blocking that doesn't look "all that bad" is something I wouldn't accept. Things like blocking, mosquito noise, rainbows, etc., get worse with more encoding and require more processing that shouldn't have been needed in the first place. Now, if that sort of thing isn't noticed by the owner or isn't a concern, then go with it. I have plenty of archives that weren't that important, went straight to my DVD recorder, and were too much of a bother so I live with it. But I wouldn't take a family member's old wedding tape and capture it to DV.

[2Bdecided]

Maybe you need more samples of VHS noise to look at.

I don't, do I? I mean, I know what my tapes look like (mostly S-VHS, some VHS), and if DV can cope just fine with them, then I'm happy. I don't need to solve the world's problems - I've already accepted that more-noise-than-signal is a no-no. I have far more signal than noise. If the DV device happened to get the levels just right, and happened to include a decent line-TBC, then I'd be over the moon (if I didn't have a line-TBC already).


When you've finished your restorations, what do you do with them? Because I don't know of any consumer delivery platform from DVD to YouTube that doesn't introduce blocking. Hence it's perfectly reasonable to describe a level of blocking on the capture as "not all that bad".


I think you have a tendency to lose perspective. Whatever you do, it's a VHS (low quality) of an old event (may be fascinating = low quality ignored, or boring = high quality wouldn't rescue the experience). It will still be that when you've finished. The difference between an LP DVD transfer vs a lossless capture, though clearly visible to most on here, would not even register with most people at all.

I believe that the differences you are talking about (DV vs lossless on typical, not bad, VHS) are barely visible even to the select crowd of people who frequent this forum.

I could be wrong, which is why I hope one day someone will post some samples / comparisons.

Cheers,
David.

[sanlyn]

I've seen comparisons around now and then, and it might be a good idea for the O.P. to submit a short clip for a more in-depth assessment. I don't disagree with what you're saying about quality issues. Sometimes it's not enough to worry about, sometimes people just don't see a difference. I don't go through the Ultimate Restoral with every piece of tape (hell, just one of them is enough to drive you crazy!). I refer to those that have irreplaceable value; whether other thinks they're silly is immaterial when it comes to personal preference. My advice about the "best" way to handle those objects is widely considered to be the most thorough way to get the best transfer one can. And I agree, it's the most troublesome method. It can't be used for anything and everything, and usually it's not worth that much effort.

[Richard_G]

sanlyn, one point you are forgetting is that the OP is in a PAL country so the quality of his original C-VHS tapes will be far better than the dire NTSC that you are used to dealing with. Admittedly, they won't be brilliant, VHS and C-VHS never was, but by capturing to DV tape using S-Video, any further degradation will be negligible and probably not noticed by the average viewer. If that DV-AVI is then transferred over Firewire and encoded to DVD compliant mpeg2, unless it has loads of very fast movement, the difference again will be negligible. It won't be HD quality but it will look no worse to the average person than simply plugging the VHS into a TV. As they are C-VHS tapes, I suspect they were shot some years ago and the lack of quality will just add to the authenticity of the footage. I mean, would you capture from 8mm cine film and then spend hours trying to make it look like an HD movie? No, you'd leave it as it is so it still looks like 8mm cine film.

[sanlyn]

I understand all that. The advice was for the benefit of the O.P. should the O.P. choose to take that route for certain material. If they don't choose, so be it. When it comes to the "average viewer", then as we used to say in the Army, ICIHICPL (= I Can't Imagine How I Could Possibly Care Less). I've made plenty of transfers for average viewers. It was short work and they are, well, viewable for their purpose. I have many similar transfers for myself. But to say that VHS to DV makes no difference? My experience and that of others leaves me convinced otherwise. They're the O.P.'s tapes. He asked some questions. He can select the answers he deems most suitable to his/her purpose.

[2Bdecided]

sanlyn, one point you are forgetting is that the OP is in a PAL country so the quality of his original C-VHS tapes will be far better than the dire NTSC that you are used to dealing with.

I wouldn't bet on that. On the whole, PAL VHS has higher vertical resolution than NTSC VHS, but PAL VHS noise levels can be higher. The famous chroma unreliability of vintage RF broadcast NTSC is irrelevant to camcorder tapes. For my sins I have spent many hours copying decent signals onto PAL and NTSC VHS, and there's not a lot in it.

As they are C-VHS tapes, I suspect they were shot some years ago and the lack of quality will just add to the authenticity of the footage.

I sometimes think people lose something of the charm of old footage by over-restoring it. However, being VHS-C implies a big advantage: they are the camera originals, not some 2nd or more generation dubs. I try to make my own transfers look as good as possible, fixing anything that can be transparently fixed, but being careful not to remove too much noise (because there's not that much real detail on VHS, and noise helps to hide that fact - plus it can't be removed perfectly without artefacts).

I mean, would you capture from 8mm cine film and then spend hours trying to make it look like an HD movie? No, you'd leave it as it is so it still looks like 8mm cine film.

The best 8mm cine film can be better than SD, and it makes sense to transfer it as well as possible...
http://vimeo.com/user678523

Cheers,
David.

[sanlyn]

I sometimes think people lose something of the charm of old footage by over-restoring it. However, being VHS-C implies a big advantage: they are the camera originals, not some 2nd or more generation dubs. I try to make my own transfers look as good as possible, fixing anything that can be transparently fixed, but being careful not to remove too much noise (because there's not that much real detail on VHS, and noise helps to hide that fact - plus it can't be removed perfectly without artefacts).

True. I've seen too much over-processing, like old tape looking as if it's been through a pressure cooker after strong overdoses of NeatVideo or some kind of industrial strength cleaner. Taming some edge stains, dropouts, rips and such is one thing, but forcing family tapes to look like DVD usually ruins them.