Capture vhs to uncompress AVI benefits and negatives?

[jayleonois]

I have been capture some vhs tapes with virutal dub to an uncompressed .avi. What would the advantages or disadvantages be to keep them in this format vs using handbrake and turning them into mp4s or mkvs.thanks!

[ItaloFan]

I don't see why it has to be a choice between one or the other. Do both: H.264 for compatibility, and AVI for archival.

Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Video_Interleave#Limitations first.

By the way, AVI, MP4, MKV are just container formats. An uncompressed A lossless video stream format will be something like HuffyYUV, Lagarith, etc., and compressed lossy format will be something like H.264, H.265, VP9, or AV1. H.264 is by far the most widely supported on playback devices. [edit: all of these are compressed formats; truly "raw video" format is ridiculously huge]

Container-wise, MKV supports pretty much all video formats.
MP4 is generally for H.264 or H.265. AVI is generally for the non-MPEG formats.

[manono]

An uncompressed video stream format will be something like HuffyYUV, Lagarith, etc....

No, those are compressed but lossless codecs, and are what the OP should be using. They produce sizes much smaller than uncompressed.

[Cornucopia]

Your choice of which codec to use should be based on:

1. What immediate functional application it is best suited for (e.g. capture, editing, distribution, archiving)
2. What the subsystems (cpu, video, storage pipeline, storage capacity) are capable of supporting
3. What apps, platforms & workflows they are compatible with

For most users, it makes the most sense to capture analog material using losslessly compressed or near-lossless lossily compressed codecs. This maximizes quality and ease of editability, yet stays within the ability of most systems to handle the bitrate (and size) and decoding complexity.


Scott

[jayleonois]

Your choice of which codec to use should be based on:

1. What immediate functional application it is best suited for (e.g. capture, editing, distribution, archiving)
2. What the subsystems (cpu, video, storage pipeline, storage capacity) are capable of supporting
3. What apps, platforms & workflows they are compatible with

For most users, it makes the most sense to capture analog material using losslessly compressed or near-lossless lossily compressed codecs. This maximizes quality and ease of editability, yet stays within the ability of most systems to handle the bitrate (and size) and decoding complexity.


Scott

what about capturing uncompressed like i have. i just seleceted no compression and have this avi file. so are avi files the best for editing?

[dellsam34]

Pure AVI with no compression is compatible with most editing software but the files are huge, if you have a small project you should be fine, but if you have a lot of files you will be eating thru TB's like a hungry worm.

[Cornucopia]

Agreed. Also, the bitrate could be a burden as well. Not counting Raw, very high bitdepth, or HDR types, there shouldn't be any benefit of totally uncompressed over losslessly compressed. And with LL you not only can fit more footage but have that footage edit more responsively.

Scott

[johnmeyer]

AVI uncompressed files are actually NOT good for editing because, as others have pointed out, the files are huge. The size of these files can slow down the playback.

To reiterate what others have said, use a lossless coded, like Lagarith, HuffYUV, or one of the more modern ones which I forget at the moment. You will have zero picture quality difference from compressed, and the files will play back more smoothly.