source -> ProRes -> h264 OR source -> ProRes and source -> h264

[Christina]

Working on converting personal home video collection (analog SD material).

Using AviSynth to do basic correction and deinterlacing with QTGMC on lossless huffyuv captures.

Then converting with ffmpeg.

I want two output files:
1. ProRes422/mov for archival purposes/future use on a mac
2. h264/mp4 for tv/computer/smartphone viewing and sharing

My question: Should I first convert to ProRes/mov, and then use that intermediate ProRes file to convert to the h264/mp4?

Or should I convert to both formats from the original source/AVS script? (I realize this takes much longer especially with QTGMC but is it better to do so since ProRes is not lossless, or not worth it?)

Also, for SD analog tapes, am I good with ffmpeg ProRes 422 version 2 (SD)?

Thanks.

[Selur]

1st thought:
Assuming the script is really time consuming how about convert the script into a lossless format and then convert that into ProRes/H.264/... ?

2nd thought: If ProRes422 is good enough for "archival purposes/future use" then it should be good enough as a basis for conversions to "tv/computer/smartphone viewing and sharing". Otherwise it isn't really good enough for "archival purposes/future use".

Cu Selur

Ps.: if it's just QTGMC and you think it's slow on SD content, much fun if you ever encounter higher resolution content (HD, 4K, 8K, ...).

[KarMa]

You would probably get better results just going for a high bitrate / low CRF x264 copy only if you are going the lossy route. Prores is Intra only and so is built more for editing than being efficient for a given bitrate. Any future editing with a x264 source, especially a SD source should be fast on even modest hardware.

[Christina]

1st thought:
Assuming the script is really time consuming how about convert the script into a lossless format and then convert that into ProRes/H.264/... ?

That is something to consider and would definitely save time in the 2 subsequent conversions, although that would now be 3 conversions/output files instead of 2, and I (currently) have no use for the lossless format, assuming I continue with a Mac into the future. So I feel like it's an unnecessary step (although I *like* the idea of having a lossless version stored somewhere). I'll probably hang onto the original interlaced captures as well, so having 4 formats of one SD video feels like overkill. I suppose I could always get rid of either the original capture or the lossless if I wanted, after conversions were done.

2nd thought: If ProRes422 is good enough for "archival purposes/future use" then it should be good enough as a basis for conversions to "tv/computer/smartphone viewing and sharing". Otherwise it isn't really good enough for "archival purposes/future use".

I guess you're right on this, but the ProRes archival file feels like a "just in case" copy that likely will not be needed, while the h264/mp4 is the "important" one that will get seen and used the most, so I wanted to make sure I was getting the best possible result in the mp4. Realistically speaking I (or anyone else) will probably never go back and redo this process, so I was thinking the ProRes files might be used in something like a compilation if someone had a big birthday party or a wedding, and I wanted to put together videos and photos, OR if h264/mp4 became not the format of choice and I needed some other format in the future, it would be better than converting the mp4 again.

Which brings me to: Do I even need the ProRes file at all?

You would probably get better results just going for a high bitrate / low CRF x264 copy only if you are going the lossy route. Prores is Intra only and so is built more for editing than being efficient for a given bitrate. Any future editing with a x264 source, especially a SD source should be fast on even modest hardware.

This is not something I had even considered because I thought the ProRes version was the "right" thing to do for archival and have never seen anyone recommend editing with x264 copy.

Do you mean finding a happy medium CRF / bitrate that I could use for my viewing mp4 AND the archival version, or do you mean generate 2 copies, one at a higher bitrate / low CRF for archive/editing and another more average bitrate / CRF for viewing? I had settled on CRF 16 but haven't tried lower than that yet to see if it makes any difference.

If 2 files, then I assume DEFINITELY go from source -> x264 each time, right?

What CRF / bitrate would be appropriate for the archival version?

Thank you both!

PS. These are the settings I was planning on using for the two conversions if going from source on both:

"C:\Program Files\ffmpeg64\bin\ffmpeg.exe" ^
    -i %1 ^
    -c:v libx264 -preset slow -crf 16 -g 50 ^
    -movflags +faststart ^
    -profile:v high -level:v 3.1 -colorspace smpte170m -color_range tv ^
    -acodec aac -b:a 256000 ^
    "%~dpn1.avc.mp4"
pause

"C:\Program Files\ffmpeg64\bin\ffmpeg.exe" ^
    -i %1 ^
    -c:v prores ^
    -profile:v 2 -pix_fmt yuv422p10le ^
    -c:a copy ^
    "%~dpn1.pro.mov"
pause

And if going from ProRes to x264, apparently I need the -pix_fmt yuv420p added? Is that the correct flag? It gave me an error without it.

"C:\Program Files\ffmpeg64\bin\ffmpeg.exe" ^
    -i %1 ^
    -c:v libx264 -preset slow -crf 16 -g 50 ^
    -movflags +faststart ^
    -pix_fmt yuv420p -profile:v high -level:v 3.1 -colorspace smpte170m -color_range tv ^
    -acodec aac -b:a 256000 ^
    "%~dpn1.avc.mp4"
pause

[Cornucopia]

I disagree with KarMa. 9 times out of 10, if you intend to do any subsequent editing, a lossless or near-lossless intra codec (this includes ProRes) will always be much faster to edit with than x264, whether low or high bitrate, intra- or inter-.

I would:
Do the 1 pass of AVIsynth with QTGMC to get your progressive LOSSLESS intermediate master.
From there, do a simple conversion to mp4 end-use copy.
If you want assurance of good archival copy, either just archive that lossless, or convert from lossless to prores and ditch the lossless.

Scott

[KarMa]

I disagree with KarMa. 9 times out of 10, if you intend to do any subsequent editing, a lossless or near-lossless intra codec (this includes ProRes) will always be much faster to edit with than x264, whether low or high bitrate, intra- or inter-.

I'm pretty sure I made it clear that Prores was built for editing. I did use the vague term "fast" without anything to compare it to when talking about x264 editing, but I was trying to say that the difference in editing speed these days with SD x264 content isn't that big with something like Prores. I personally don't come across any timeline slowdown with SD x264 in Adobe PP, it's seemingly instant. I don't even have Intel QS nor anything other than software decode.

Anyway OP said it was for archival, and not immediate editing. Nor has OP mentioned the word editing. I brought up editing as Prores is generally associated with either camera capture sources or intermediaries. Using Prores solely as an archive is a bit dubious, considering you already committed the sin of lossy.

[lordsmurf]

Anyway OP said it was for archival,

H.264 is not archival. It's delivery.
ProRes422 is an intermediary, yes, but also an archival.

[Selur]

H.264 is not archival. It's delivery.

I don't see any reason for H.264 lossless (same for H.265 lossless) not being used for archival.
Especially since newer NVIDIA (don't know about Intel and AMD) VPUs have hardware decoding support for it.

ProRes422 is an intermediary, yes, but also an archival.

ProRes is only used as intermediary since it's one of the formats supported by older NLEs, so more a 'historical' then a 'makes sense' kind of reasoning behind it.
Using ProRes422 for archival is a thing I would debate about whether it makes sense nowadays or not.
(I see that it is used for archival, but in my point of view archival media should be 1:1 copies of the original,...)

Cu Selur

[KarMa]

H.264 is not archival. It's delivery.
ProRes422 is an intermediary, yes, but also an archival.

Because you said so I guess. And most archives use just FFV1 if they have access to a lossless source, like OP.

[sophisticles]

My two cents, produce a movie they will ingest the raw camera files into an editor, perform their edits and export a master. While all content is archived, both the raw footage and the master are archived and the master is what is sent out to from which the delivery content will be produced.

Depending on the ProRes variant used, it is of very high quality and usually indistinguishable from the source. The best part is certain Pro Res version are also very "light" and easily editable on even low end hardware, for instance if you go here https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera/workflow and download the 6k ProRes "Wedding" video, I can edit that via Shotcut and Resolve on Linux using a i3 7100 with integrated graphics and only 8Gb of ram, it actually caught me by surprise.

Of course, some Prores versions are beasts and you will need much, much beefier hardware.

[Christina]

I understand there really is no right or wrong answer here. Just looking for the "best for me" answer.

The reason I leaned towards ProRes is because I'm doing the capturing and converting on an old Windows 7 machine, but my primary computer is a Mac, and of course Macs like ProRes. My Mac is getting old too though - I believe it's a 2013 model and I have Yosemite on it because I have some programs that don't run past that OS that I want to still use. My Mac has Final Cut Pro 7 on it, and I've got Perian installed, so I can currently use videos encoded with HuffYUV in FCP7 if needed.

Keyword: Currently. I imagine that at some point I will upgrade my Mac to a new one, and I will lose those programs and be forced to find alternatives. At that point, who knows if there will be a decoder for HuffYUV for the Mac, which is why, even though that codec would work ok for me now as archival/intermediary, I was staying away from it.

I know there are other lossless codecs that work on both Windows and Mac but I haven't looked into any yet since I thought I was just going to ouput to ProRes.

To answer the question being discussed above, I don't plan on "editing" these archival copies in the sense of color correcting, adjusting levels, or any other things I've already done on the source to create the archival/intermediary (using these terms loosely) copy. The thing I would most likely use them for in reality is:

1. Cut out sections to use in a compilation with other videos/photos (would probably be working on a Mac)
2. Reconvert if someday I need another delivery format other than h264/mp4 (can do this on any computer)

I don't mind keeping the original capture, some variant of ProRes for the above reasons, and the delivery format. Where I start to get fuzzy on what to do is if I throw another lossless codec into that mix between the original and the other formats. Then I can't decide what to keep and what to throw away.

The best part is certain Pro Res version are also very "light" and easily editable on even low end hardware...

Of course, some Prores versions are beasts and you will need much, much beefier hardware.

So, assuming I continue on with my original plan and end up with a ProRes copy following one of the suggested paths to get there, which version of ProRes should I be sticking with?

Flip side, if I go with a different actual lossless codec for archival/intermediary, what codec is most recommended to use for both windows and mac, that is the most future proof?

[sophisticles]

Check here for a good write up on various ProRes versions:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202410

https://vmi.tv/training/useful-stuff/Prores_Codecs#:~:text=The%20Apple%20ProRes%20form...each%20version

https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000404.shtml

I like ProRes LT a lot, that's the one that can be edited even on low end hardware.

There's also ProRes RAW, but there's no way you are working with that.

[Cornucopia]

Christina, maybe this will clear away some of the confusion:

Do you intend to continue working on a Mac in future?

If so, your choice is simple and obvious - ProRes!
Why? because on newer Macs, there is no support for 3rd part codecs, nor is there any roadmap or hint of change on this.
Macs do also natively support h264/AVC and h265/HEVC, but that support is NOT native for the whole family (so Intra, or Lossless versions very likely would be stuck).

Scott

[lordsmurf]

VirtualDub2 reads and encodes ProRes422.
Handy.

[Christina]

Thanks all. Sounds like I should keep a copy of ProRes since I will likely be using a Mac into the future. I will hang onto the original lossless capture as well just in case.

I like ProRes LT a lot, that's the one that can be edited even on low end hardware.

I had been planning on using the plain 422 profile, not the LT. Is the LT version sufficient for SD footage or should I stick with the 422? Specs on my mac are decent and would only get better if I were to upgrade, so I don't think I need to worry about editing on low end hardware.

Apple ProRes 422
The Apple ProRes 422 codec provides the following:
Target data rate of approximately 145 Mbps (1920 x 1080 at 60i)
Higher quality than Apple ProRes 422 (LT)
Recording at 1080/25p, 1 minute of media will take 1GB, or alternatively a 32GB card will record 32 mins

Apple ProRes 422 (LT)
The Apple ProRes 422 (LT) codec provides the following:
Roughly 70 percent of the data rate of Apple ProRes 422 (thus, smaller file sizes than Apple ProRes 422)
Higher quality than Apple ProRes 422 (Proxy)
Recording at 1080/25p, 1 minute of media will take 734.7MB, or alternatively a 32GB card will record 43 mins

VirtualDub2 reads and encodes ProRes422.
Handy.

Thanks, I had seen that before but I haven't used it. Is there any benefit to using VirtualDub2 vs. drag and drop onto .bat file I have set up as below?

"C:\Program Files\ffmpeg64\bin\ffmpeg.exe" ^
    -i %1 ^
    -c:v prores ^
    -profile:v 2 -pix_fmt yuv422p10le ^
    -c:a copy ^
    "%~dpn1.pro.mov"
pause

The only drawback I've run into with the drag and drop so far is that if I have multiple files and I drag and drop more than one in a row, they seem to all be encoding simultaneously rather than building a queue and encoding one at a time. I assume it would be better to encode one at a time, although that is an assumption...

Is there a way to queue ffmpeg encodes rather than having them running all at once? What about moving everything to be encoded into a folder and encode entire directory via .bat file, does that queue? Or am I overthinking this, let them all run at once?

[poisondeathray]

I had been planning on using the plain 422 profile, not the LT. Is the LT version sufficient for SD footage or should I stick with the 422? Specs on my mac are decent and would only get better if I were to upgrade, so I don't think I need to worry about editing on low end hardware.

Only you can answer that.

It depends on your expectations. ProresHQ is "not good enough" for some people (even 4444XQ is not enough for some people). And yet others consider it overkill. Do some tests to see if it's "good enough" for you or for what situations you're going to be using it for

Certainly SD prores HQ can be edited on a dual core macbook like a breeze. Even HD ProresHQ footage can be edited quite easily on an old dual core macbook. Prores cuts like butter on a Mac. Less so on a PC or linux. You won't notice the difference with LT vs. HQ in terms of editing performance if you have dual core or better (but you might notice quality issues).

Is there any benefit to using VirtualDub2 vs. drag and drop onto .bat file I have set up as below?

Not really, unless you were using vdub2 for other processing

Is there a way to queue ffmpeg encodes rather than having them running all at once? What about moving everything to be encoded into a folder and encode entire directory via .bat file, does that queue? Or am I overthinking this, let them all run at once?

In windows, you would use a dos For loop and ffmpeg batch file to process them sequentially. But you can't add to the queue or change it dynamically in the middle. You'd process all the files that already exist in a folder, for example process all the mov files in a folder , converting them to prores

for %%a in ("*.mov") do ffmpeg -i "%%a" -c:v prores -profile:v 2 -pix_fmt yuv422p10le -c:a copy  "%%~na_pro.mov"
pause

It's not like a watch folder, where as soon as a file gets moved into the folder of interest,that file gets processed

[Christina]

In windows, you would use a dos For loop and ffmpeg batch file to process them sequentially. But you can't add to the queue or change it dynamically in the middle. You'd process all the files that already exist in a folder, for example process all the mov files in a folder , converting them to prores

for %%a in ("*.mov") do ffmpeg -i "%%a" -c:v prores -profile:v 2 -pix_fmt yuv422p10le -c:a copy  "%%~na_pro.mov"
pause

OK, I think I get it, thanks. So I could save that command in a .bat file saved in the folder that I will have my videos to encode (let's say they will be .avs files) and then just double click the .bat file to execute?

Also I have both 32 and 64 bit ffmpeg so can I substitute ffmpeg in your example with the entire path to ffmpeg64? And if so, put it in quotes? like:

for %%a in ("*.avs") do "C:\Program Files\ffmpeg64\bin\ffmpeg.exe" -i "%%a" -c:v prores -profile:v 2 -pix_fmt yuv422p10le -c:a copy  "%%~na_pro.mov"
pause

[poisondeathray]

So I could save that command in a .bat file saved in the folder that I will have my videos to encode (let's say they will be .avs files) and then just double click the .bat file to execute?

Yes; or if you want to execute directly from command line, it's the same thing with only 1 "%" instead of 2 "%%"

Also I have both 32 and 64 bit ffmpeg so can I substitute ffmpeg in your example with the entire path to ffmpeg64? And if so, put it in quotes? like:

Yes, if you specify the path to specific .exe - that specific version will be used

Some people specify paths to binaries as environment variables, so the .exe can be called from anywhere without specifying the path directly

[Christina]

Question: If all of my AviSynth filters work in YUY2 (colorspace I captured in), should I still be converting to YV12 anyway? I commented it out in my script as a test and nothing complained about not being in the right colorspace, but I am not sure if it should be in YV12 for another reason later on.

Also, regarding ProRes and the Mac: I brought a test .mov prores file that I created using everything discussed above into FCP7 on the mac and it gave me a warning on import. It still worked fine as far as I could tell, but it gave me the media performance warning:

"The following media files are not optimized for Final Cut Pro. It is highly recommended that you either recapture the media or use the media manager to create new copies of the files to improve their performance for multi-stream playback."

Being that it's ProRes, the only thing I can think of is that it's ffmpeg's version of ProRes? Anyone know why this might be or if I should be concerned? It seemed to work fine on the timeline, preview window, etc.


Edit: Just saw in another post that YV12 is more compatible in h264 mp4 files and that's why it should be used anyway. If none of my Avisynth filters need it, should I still be doing it at the top of my script, or as the last thing after all the filters? i.e. is there any benefit in retaining YUY2 as long as possible or better to convert to yv12 early on before the filters?

Or, just add -pix_fmt yuv420p to my ffmpeg batch file script when converting to h264?

[Christina]

In windows, you would use a dos For loop and ffmpeg batch file to process them sequentially. But you can't add to the queue or change it dynamically in the middle. You'd process all the files that already exist in a folder, for example process all the mov files in a folder , converting them to prores

for %%a in ("*.mov") do ffmpeg -i "%%a" -c:v prores -profile:v 2 -pix_fmt yuv422p10le -c:a copy  "%%~na_pro.mov"
pause

@poisondeathray, if i wanted to output the files to a different directory rather than the one the input files are in, how exactly would I modify "%%~na_pro.mov" ?

Also, can you explain why for the for/do loop to batch process the directory has "%%~na_pro.mov" while the drag and drop uses "%~dpn1.pro.mov"? What is the difference between %%~na and %~dpn1 and in either scenario how do I specify a different output directory that is not the input directory?

Thanks. I tried googling this but I don't know anything about windows scripting other than what you showed me so I'm having trouble understanding what I'm reading.

Edit: I figured it out for the loop (using %%~na) - would it be the same thing for the drag and drop file, change it to %~na.pro.mov with path in front of it?

[poisondeathray]

%% is for batch file (.bat) , % is for executing at the command prompt

To add a different output path, just prepend it

"PATH\%%~na_pro.mov"

[Christina]

Thanks to everyone for your help! I feel like I'm finally rockin' and rollin' now.

I wanted to report back with a test I just did. It was only one video so not sure if it's indicative of general results I could expect, but figured I'd share what I found.

I did one conversion directly from my AviSynth script to h264/mp4. (no intermediate copy at all)

Then I did another conversion from my AviSynth script to ProRes LT, and then did a subsequent conversion of the ProRes LT file to the h264/mp4.

I was curious if I could see any discernible difference in quality when going with an intermediate not-lossless codec, and the lower quality LT version no less, and then creating my delivery file from that intermediate copy.

Oddly, at least I think it's odd, the mp4 I generated from the ProRes LT copy looks BETTER than the mp4 I generated directly from my AviSynth Script.

The only difference is where the colorspace conversions took place. When I went directly from AviSynth to H264, I did ConverttoYV12 early on in my script. When I went from AviSynth to ProRes, I never converted colorspaces until I converted the ProRes file to the mp4 file using ffmpeg using the pix_fmt tag. From everything I've read, it doesn't seem that colorspace conversions should be the cause of any real noticeable quality loss, so I assume something else is going on. All other settings were identical.

Both videos look "fine" to me, but the direct conversion from AviSynth script to mp4 looks noisier in the dark areas. And it's a larger file size.

I haven't tested any other workflows yet, such as going to a lossless codec first for intermediate and then making my other 2 copies from that. That seemed a little overkill for my needs though and I'm not even 100% sure I really need the intermediate file at all, or just the mp4 delivery format, because future editing or redoing is unlikely, and I will keep original captures.

Anyway - I'm trying to find the most efficient workflow since I have so many tapes to do, and if I can get visually better results going from AviSynth to ProRes LT to MP4 and get a lightweight intermediate file for possible future use at the same time, I'm happy!

I'd like to do a couple more tests this way and see if I can notice any other differences before I decide on a final workflow. I've done 2 tapes so far just going from my script to h264, skipping any intermediate codec.

[Christina]

Attached a snippet from each conversion mentioned above if anyone is interested.

[Sharc]

I haven't been following up the whole thread, but just looking at your 2 variants:

The 'direct' looks sharper and keeps more details. Unfortunately the 'details' include all artefacts (halos, dotcrawl?) which got smoothed out in 'prores' for some reason.
It looks to me like the prores conversion included some kind of filtering/softening.
I would prefer the 'direct' method, but think about applying some extra noise filtering.

Also, there seem to be occasional color/brightness glitches in both versions. These are probably present in the source as well. Flashlights?

You may want to post a snippet of the original capture for obtaining better advice.

[Christina]

Those are flashes from people taking pictures.

I will post the original capture as soon as I get a chance.

No filtering or softening was done on the ProRes version unless it’s “built in” to ProRes.

From my eyes, the “important” details like someone’s facial features were no clearer in one or the other and the ProRes version didn’t look overly soft. Where I saw the most difference was in the darker areas like in the outfits. I’ve only played it back on my computer monitor so far. Going to play it on the tv and see if one or the other is better when tv upscales.

So far the visual difference is minor enough that either would be fine for me but I’d like to try again with a cleaner source where lighting was better and there’s more details up close to the camera.

Appreciate your feedback.

[Christina]

Attached is original capture.

Here is the AviSynth Script for both. The only difference is I commented out ConvertToYV12(interlaced=true) when I made the ProRes version.

SetFilterMTMode("QTGMC", 2)            
Avisource("8mm_27_1995_03.avi")        
Trim(175907,-7961)                   
ConvertToYV12(interlaced=true)          
AssumeTFF()                      
QTGMC(Preset="slower", Edithreads=2)  
ColorYUV(gain_y=87, off_y=-35, cont_u=60, cont_v=60, gamma_y=65) 
Crop(12,0,-20,-12).AddBorders(16,6,16,6)  
BilinearResize(640,height)                                    
fadeio0(30)     
PreFetch(4)

Here is the direct to MP4 script:

for %%a in ("*.avs") do (
	"C:\Program Files\ffmpeg64\bin\ffmpeg.exe" -i "%%a" ^
	-c:v libx264 -preset slow -crf 14 -g 50 ^
	-movflags +faststart ^
	-profile:v high -level:v 3.1 -colorspace smpte170m -color_range tv ^
	-acodec aac -b:a 256000 ^
	"C:\Users\user\Videos\Exports - Delivery - H264 MP4\%%~na_avc.mp4" )
pause

Here is the ProRes LT Script:

"C:\Program Files\ffmpeg64\bin\ffmpeg.exe" ^
    -i %1 ^
    -c:v prores ^
    -profile:v 1 ^
    -c:a copy ^
    "%~dpn1.pro.mov"
pause

Here is the ProRes to MP4 script:

"C:\Program Files\ffmpeg64\bin\ffmpeg.exe" ^
    -i %1 ^
    -c:v libx264 -preset slow -crf 14 -g 50 ^
    -movflags +faststart ^
    -pix_fmt yuv420p -profile:v high -level:v 3.1 -colorspace smpte170m -color_range tv ^
    -acodec aac -b:a 256000 ^
    "%~dpn1.avc.mp4"
pause

[Sharc]

The ....capture.avi has strong artefacts. What devices/settings did you use for capturing? Did you enable a sharpener?
If you can't improve the capturing process you could try to apply extra filtering. After the bob-deintelacer (QTGMC) you may want to insert in your script

MCDegrainSharp(frames=4)

There are probably better proposals from more experienced members......

[Christina]

The ....capture.avi has strong artefacts. What devices/settings did you use for capturing? Did you enable a sharpener?
If you can't improve the capturing process you could try to apply extra filtering. After the bob-deintelacer (QTGMC) you may want to insert in your script

MCDegrainSharp(frames=4)

There are probably better proposals from more experienced members......

I captured with ATI 600 USB with Virtual Dub's proc amp settings to adjust levels. It was my first whole-tape capture and to be honest, I don't remember the exact settings I used as far as the values. I've done 2 tapes since then and I know for sure on those I turned Sharpen down to 0 in the levels. It's possible I had it on 1 for this capture, which is lower than the default setting, but not sure. Been learning and tweaking as I go along. No other filters were applied during capture.

I'm playing these tapes in the camcorder that was used to record them, but I find that it plays them a little grainy. I have a newer Digital8 camcorder that works with some tapes but not others, but on the tapes that it does play, I find it plays them cleaner. However, sometimes the tape starts playing fine, and then at some point I lose the video signal and only get audio, so it's not an option for most tapes recorded in this time frame, or this brand of tape, or whatever is causing that issue. Some tapes work just fine all the way through. Others not at all. And others start fine and eventually drop video. So the camcorder could be partially to blame for the noise, maybe?

I'm definitely open to more feedback if anyone wants to critique. For some of you that have been helping me along, you may remember that this is the second time I'm capturing and converting my home video collection. The first time I was using my Digital8 camcorder as passthru and living in DV format, converting to h264 in Handbrake with decomb filter. I just looked back on this same dance video from the DV days and as much as I'm sure there is room for improvement on the new video, I'm elated with the improvement in quality. The difference would be apparent to even those with no critical eye whatsoever, and the double frame rate with QTGMC on something with so much movement like a dance video also makes a huge difference. Point is, I'm super happy with the results so far but would not mind getting even better!

[Sharc]

....... Point is, I'm super happy with the results so far..........

......... which is all what really matters!