VHS quality is = to VCD/SVCD?

[David9799]

I know it's not DVD so is the quality of VHS about the same as SVCD?

[LanEvo7]

I think its closer to VCD than SVCD.

[Donny661]

vcd's resolution is equal to vhs, but vcd has more visible artifacts compared to a new vhs. I suppose if a vcd was made from an extremely clean source (better than dvd) and had the best possible encoder it would probably look the same as vhs. svcd is definately better than vhs (close to svhs or laserdisc) and is nice if you want to convert a vhs to it and want your final product to look almost exactly like the original vhs.

[FulciLives]

I would suggest either making a SVCD or creating a DVD with half D1 resolution. A normal DVD is 720x480 but at half D1 it is 352x480 and this seems to work well when the source is a "low" quality source such as VHS. Please note that SVCD is actually 480x480 but of course the benefit of going half D1 DVD is the fact that a DVD is more compatable than any SVCD since so few stand alone DVD players seem to be able to properly play back a SVCD.

So in short go with SVCD if you only have CD burning capabilities or go with half D1 DVD resolution if you have a DVD burner.

Please note that the values given above are for NTSC. For PAL you would use 352x576 for half D1 or 480x576 for SVCD

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

P.S.
In my opinion VCD is not very well suited for much of anything. Sometimes simple animation can look OK but I've even seen some more "complex" types of animation (such as detailed Japanese anime) look bad at VCD levels. Live action stuff looks horrible IMHO unless you create an XVCD but if you are gonna do that then you might as well just make a SVCD to standard spec. Unless you have a DVD player that can do XVCD but not SVCD (I have one like that and used to make XVCD before I got a DVD burner).

[Vejita-sama]

A properly authored SVCD from a clean source gives much better quaility than VHS. A properly authored VCD is about the same or a little better than VHS. The problem is most x(S)VCDs are either poorly authored/encoded or come from crappy sources

If you buy a commerical VCD or SVCD you can see the difference. A d/loaded divx -> mpeg1 -> CDR just isn't the same... Take a DVD you own and make a 10min VCD and 10min SVCD sample clip/disc. Comparing that to a commerical VHS tape is a better comparison.

It's important to understand that you can not create quaility, only lose it. A lot of people seem to think that transfering their old VHS tapes to SVCD or DVD will somehow result in better quality?! But GIGO...

[FulciLives]

A properly authored SVCD from a clean source gives much better quaility than VHS. A properly authored VCD is about the same or a little better than VHS. The problem is most x(S)VCDs are either poorly authored/encoded or come from crappy sources

In some aspects a VCD is better than VHS in terms of the way it handles "noise" and "color" information. If made from a high quality source (such as a DVD) then the fact that it is a digital file will show in that the "noise" and "color" information is superior to most analog sources and MUCH better than VHS. However the bitrate for a VCD (standard spec) is just SO low that you end up getting those annoying-as-hell macroblocks. I hate them. Can't stand them. Don't use VCD because of them.

Of course that's me

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[RoopeT]

VHS resolution is much better than VCD resolution. Even the commercial, good quality VCDs are worse than a good quality VHS tape (less details). During last few years I've seen the statement "VHS resolution is ~320x240" for hundreds of times, but this is not true. If you have a very good quality VHS tape you cannot reproduce all of its details even encoding in CVD resolution but you have to go up to SVCD resolution. If your VHS isn't exactly top quality then CVD resolution is fine. VCD resolution is totally useless.

If using CD media the CVD resolution is probably the best way to go, as with SVCD resolution maximum bitrate limitations will probably cause macroblocking. Without any knowledge about this (except my own eyes and quite some encoding sessions from various VHS sources) I would guess PAL VHS resolution is ~400x400 maximum.

[txpharoah]

VHS resolution (variable range that exists about 320x220-240 lines) is at an approximate resolution of VCD (scientifically exact 352x240).

However, the issue at hand is that VCD is progressive, and the VHS standard is interlaced. Given that you view these on an interlaced television or on a computer that uses overlay at 60hz, VHS will always be superior. It effectively stores twice as much data as VCD due to the frames/fields.

The only approximate resolution to tv, staying truest as possible to accepted specs, is CVD/DVD 352x480 interlaced MPEG2, which is a close approximate of the S-VHS (variable 320x400-425 lines) format.

SVCD (480x480) and DVD (704x480,720x480) is honestly a waste. The s-video cable, which is better than composite or coax, is only physically able to transmit a signal up to 352x480 (approximate SVHS) resolutions.

Some people swear that padding the stream with more bitrate and resolution makes the quality "better" but that's probably more of a psychological impression moreso than fact. The usual reason people find it to be "better" than the source is due to the natural cleansing of video that happens as a side effect of the MPEG2 encoding process.

And actually, there are quite a few VCDs that can outperform LP mode or EP mode VHS tapes.

Most DVD players that support 1150k MPEG1 VCD will also support the DVD spec maximum resolution of 1856k MPEG1. So if making VCDs, try the maximum bitrate as prescribed by DVD specs. I've actually caught several commercially-made VCDs using 1500-1850k bitrates.

[malducci]

VHS equal to VCD - that is a question of: is it better in theory or in practice. VHS is horizontal Luminance resolution is less then 352, and if I remember correctly each fields vertical luminance resolution is 240. But the chrominance resolution is horrorable on VHS both horizontally and vertically. I cannot remember the color space compression for VCD, but I'll guess its around 4:1:1. On paper VCD looks to be superior, but in practice a commercial VHS looks a little better overall - of course that's all a matter of opinoin like all judgements of quality. The only reason I think VHS is slighty better it because of the artifacts in VCD - I can't stand artifacts

As far as converting a VHS to VCD/CVD/SVCD/half-D1 DVD/ - I think DVD would be fine, SVCD too. If you plan to use CVD, capture at a higher horizontal resolution, then resize down to 352. That way you capture as much of the chrominace resolution as you can ( using a lossless codec ) and your filters have more chrominance resolution to work with.

[SatStorm]

Interlace Mpeg 2 @ 352 X 288 (yes, it is possible...) with ~1500kb/s is VHS for sure...
The problem is that you can use it only on DVD Video officially. The other way is to use it with xSVCDs, like sefy's SxVCD (very good for VHS).

VCD is about 90% of VHS. It is not a resolution problem, it is because of the interlace. On HDTV or a progressive screen, if you compare VCD over VHS, VCD might look better or equal.

CVD is an overkill for VHS. CVD is equal SVHS. The problem is that the encoders can't encode with CVD bitrates (max:2520kb/s) good enough, so or you do xCVDs or 1/2 D1 DVDs. A 352 X 576 resolution from a VHS/SVHS source, needs about 3000kb/s or more to look good without filtering. Sometimes, even 4000kb/s are needed....

If you filter VHS correct, then it is possible to succeed great results with CVD at 2300kb/s.


So: You have 3 roots:

Grabb, filter (optional), encode to 352 X 288/240 mpeg 2 @ ~average 1200kb/s (filtered) ~1500 (as is). That way, you have VHS quality

Grabb, filter, encode to 352 X 576/480 mpeg 2 @ 2300kb/s. That way, you have VHS quality or LP SVHS one.

Grabb and encode with minimum possible filters, @ 352 X 576 with an average of 3000kb/s. That way you have VHS and SVHS quality.


Personally, I use 352 X 576 if the VHS source is good. If not, I use 352 X 288.
You can't tell the difference. If you can, it is for many other reasons, like not so great support of this resolution from your DVD standalone (poor D/A convertion & Pan and Scan to full CCIR), bad encoding technick (Use CBR if you don't know how to set up perfect the encoder for so low bitrates....) or bad encoder in general.

IMHO always, OK?

[txpharoah]

Interlace Mpeg 2 @ 352 X 288 (yes, it is possible...) with ~1500kb/s is VHS for sure...

Absolutely, but remember that 280 is the interlace barrier, which is great for PAL folks, but not us NTSC users. Ya'll got lucky by 8 pixels. Lucky bastards.

[SatStorm]

Yes I know....
This NTSC of yours... What a system!!!
With PAL everything is sooooo easy!

[TheInformer]

Here's a FAQ that has horizontal resolutions for various formats such as VHS, DVD, etc:
http://www.totse.com/en/media/cable_and_satellite_television_hacks/videofaq.html

VHS horizontal resolution is 220 in EP mode and 240 in SP mode, according to that page. Vertical resolution is pretty much fixed in NTSC at 480 lines for any format.

I had found a page in the past that had a table on it which listed the various formats and their resolutions according to chroma, luminance, etc. It was a very nice source of information! Unfortunately, either it's been taken down or I just can't seem to find it.

That page listed VHS at having 220 as the effective horizontal resolution.

[malducci]

I've also read on quite different spec sheets that VHS can hold a maximum horizontal resolution of 300. But VHS does not use samples for it video - it's completely analog, so you really can't give it a pixel resolution for the horizontal res, like you can with the vertical res. In theory, the horizontal analog itself signal has no built in resolution limit like vertical res. If you try to exactly @ 200, 240, or 300 - then you'll never catch all of the signal.

Actually, this is true for 352 or 480 capturing, but since there is very little to gain from capturing higher than 400+ H. res, most people don't see the difference or its too small to really matter. Remember, you capture card is sampling the horizontal analog signal - so while your sampling every 352,480,704, or 720( this is a fake mode on some cards ) times per horizontal lines, you must remember the horizontal chrominance res is half the luminance H. res. Since the Chrominance res is so crappy, I want to capture as much of it as I can - especially if I want to clean up video or apply other filters.

I personally capture @ 704/720 x 480 RGB lossless for VHS for my important personal footage, and 352x480 4:2:2 for all other VHS footage. Some will argue that its pointless to capture @ that res - well just because you can't see or notice a difference, does not mean it is not there.

Personally, I use 352 X 576 if the VHS source is good. If not, I use 352 X 288. You can't tell the difference.

352x288 - you just thru out half your temporal resolution, not to mention you just converted your to progessive by throwing out every other field ( there are better ways to deinterlace). Your right though, there are some VHS tapes that are just not worth the time and hassle

[SaSi]

I think that VCD out of VHS is loosing quality due to the low bitrate. I think 1150kbps is a bit low for the VHS content.

I have also done some SVCD disks that are not true SVCD but 720x576 at 2500kbps. I believe this is called XSVCD or something. Looks good but again the bitrate appears to be too little for some sort of action scenes.

The best comprimise I've ended up with is xalf D1 resolution. 352 x 288 @ 25fps in MPEG-2 at 3500kbps VBR with audio at 192kbps. I author it onto DVD format. Of course this is for PAL format.

I have also found that even if the VHS source is less than VHS (e.g. LP or EP quality), reducing bitrate will cause pixelation and artifacts when encoding. However, this is true with Mainconcept. I have also recently found out that CCE SP encoding at low bitrates with the low bitrate quantization matrices will simply blur the image as much as required to ensure proper image quality at the selected bitrate. This means (have not tried it yet) that with CCE the bitrate could get even lower, perhaps to a proper SVCD or even VCD bitrate with an image quality as good as source allows.

The absolute lesson is that full DVD resolution and bitrate is a huge waste for VHS content.

Still looking for the equivalent for 8mm camcorder footage. Here, I find that half D1 is little but perhaps full D1 too much.

[SatStorm]

@malducci
No, I don't thru out the half of the temporal resolution and I don't deinterlace and I don't have a progressive result. You think NTSC. I'm talking PAL here.

If you grabb 352 X 576 from VHS, you grabb active and non active lines the same time. Those non active lines are a value in the digital world, in analogue screens they just waiting (and the same time slow fading) to be replace from another next field.

So, if you grabb 352 X 576 and then resize correct to 352 X 288, you end up with 288 only active lines. The usefull picture info that is. It has nothing to do with de-interlacing. You can do this only with PAL VHS not NTSC VHS. Now, you can encode to interlace 352 x 288 (PAL). That way, you have 2 fields of 144 lines each. It is interlace. It is possible. But there is a difference: Those interlace fields ain't in an offset mode between them, as they are when the are 288 + 288. So, you see them "progressive" in the monitor screen. On TV, they are interlace! This is a cheap trick only for Pal Users.

As txpharoah reminded me, "280 is the interlace barrier, which is great for PAL folks, but not us NTSC users"

Just encode am interlace and a progressive 352 X 288 mpeg from the same interlace source, burn it as xSVCD and view it on TV. If your standalone support pal xSVCD and your TV is PAL, you gonna see a great colour difference! It is the interlace who do the trick, even in this framesize!

[rhegedus]

Whilst we're on the subject of VHS conversion, does anyone know what the bitrate of the audio is for VHS?

[txpharoah]

This is a cheap trick only for Pal Users.

Hmm. This reminds me, my DVD players do just fine with PAL. Hmm. Until reading this post, I never considered just making myself PAL content discs. I'm going to give it a shot.

Whilst we're on the subject of VHS conversion, does anyone know what the bitrate of the audio is for VHS?

Bitrate is a digital concept. The equivalent is about 128k or 160k 44.1hz audio. It's changed a lot in past years. I quit keeping track some time ago. You have to figure out the output of the source, as it varies. And then you have Mono vs HiFi and several other analog concepts to reconsider.

[rhegedus]

Whilst we're on the subject of VHS conversion, does anyone know what the bitrate of the audio is for VHS?

Bitrate is a digital concept. The equivalent is about 128k or 160k 44.1hz audio. It's changed a lot in past years. I quit keeping track some time ago. You have to figure out the output of the source, as it varies. And then you have Mono vs HiFi and several other analog concepts to reconsider.

Point taken. I just thought there might be a limit as to the quality that magnetic tape could store - like the cassette vs CD issue. Let me put it another way - above what bitrate will I not notice any difference in audio quality of an encode from a VHS source.

[txpharoah]

Point taken. I just thought there might be a limit as to the quality that magnetic tape could store - like the cassette vs CD issue. Let me put it another way - above what bitrate will I not notice any difference in audio quality of an encode from a VHS source.

You'll get arguments of 192k vs 224k 48hz, but anything above it or below it is in the minority. I use both, depending on how I feel that day.

Dipping below 192k 48hz will lose audio info.

Using 256k 48hz or higher is overkill, similar to using 10 MB/s MPEG2 720x480 on a 1980s EP-mode VHS tape. Or sticking a W12-engine in a Dodge Neon. No point at all.

The actual approximate of tv audio is ~44.1hz at ~128-160k, or a closer representation thereof. That translated into the ~192-224k 48hz quoted above.

[SatStorm]

@ txpharoah: If your source is NTSC then converting to PAL isn't a good idea as you probably know. The same I can say for the opposite...

But if you have a so/so PAL VHS source, then this framesize it might be a better choice! A CBR 352 X 288 @ 1300kb/s gonna look identical a 352 X 576 @ the double bitrate (2600kb/s). But If you have a good quality VHS, CVD is a sharper and overall better, but some filtering is always needed (dynamic noise reduction for sure...)

Don't mention the horror called "SECAM" (System Even Crapier America's). Have you ever tried cap and encode secam?

[flaninacupboard]

assuming it's a good tape (not been watched hundreds of times) then treat it as you would any other audio. in practice this means you want 256kbps or higher for ordinary content, probably 300 or higher for music, and 192 or higher for just voice or something like a documentary.

[txpharoah]

@ txpharoah: If your source is NTSC then converting to PAL isn't a good idea as you probably know. The same I can say for the opposite...

Early morning stupidity is still around. Should get more coffee. I should know better than that. Yeah, THAT'S why I've never done x288 PAL. But I do have some PAL tapes that I need to convert. However, the only time I use lower resolutions is for mediocre-quality output (space savers), so I still might try it out on some broadcast captures.

Don't mention the horror called "SECAM" (System Even Crapier America's). Have you ever tried cap and encode secam?

LOL. Never heard that one before. I do a pretty good job of avoiding SECAM, but I get them in my freelancing every now and then. Normally 1980s tapes from immigrants.

[txpharoah]

assuming it's a good tape (not been watched hundreds of times) then treat it as you would any other audio. in practice this means you want 256kbps or higher for ordinary content, probably 300 or higher for music, and 192 or higher for just voice or something like a documentary.

But you've also got to realize that the human ear phases out much of what you hear already, even at the "low" frequency of 128k 44.1hz.

The higher numbers are for those that imagine lower quality (though science flip-flops on this fact quite often, however the disagreements are still in a lower area than full-blown 250k+ 48hz bitrates).

The higher bitrates were only introduced in order to allocate enough bandwidth for more audio channels.

The "higher-for-music" argument may hold true at high volumes on certain equipment, but not often. You'll already have ringing in your ears at that point anyhow. :P

In most cases, speakers will kill any extra perceived "benefits" of ultra-high bitrates. No matter how "professional" or "expensive" your sound setup may be.

...and if I sound like an ass right now, I'm sorry. It's just an early morning, and I'm a bit dry and emotion-less when I'm tired.

[flaninacupboard]

obviously i understand the way audio compression works, it's designed to make me think there's no audio information missing, and as such it doesn't sound "bad" when you hear it. however as rhegdeus is talking about a direct comparison between the two the deciding factor is not whether the audio sounds "bad" just whether it sounds the "same". Again, these terms are entirely subjective, but my point remains: for an A/B comparison, they are the bitrates i reccomend.
As for not tihnking you need the extra bits for music (and suggesting you need it loud to appreciate quality, what is that?) do some tests and then come back to me I've always found anything with more than two layers (i.e. Vocals + guitar + drums + keyboard + bass guitar) is destroyed with lower bitrates. again, it doesn't sound "bad", it just doesn't sound anything like the original.

[David9799]

ok you guys have gone over my head now!!

There is really no point in keeping the video i captured in DVD quality right? I'd be better off converting it to SVCD then burn it to a DVD?

[flaninacupboard]

i think the general consensus is to capture it at 720X480(576 if you're PAL) and then convert to 352X480(576) MPEG-2, with 3000kbps average bitrate or higher. this should comfortable look the "same" as your VHS, and any more resolution is just a waste. but, to be sure, try it for yourself and see if you're happy with that method, and let us know.

[malducci]

@SatStorm,

If you grabb 352 X 576 from VHS, you grabb active and non active lines the same time. Those non active lines are a value in the digital world, in analogue screens they just waiting (and the same time slow fading) to be replace from another next field.

Although I don't use PAL equipment - from what I have read, the few major differences Between PAL and NTSC is: 1) resolution/PAR. 2) 50hz vs 59.94hz. 3) Chrominance is shifted to an alternating scanline - hence the ancronym for PAL. I also remember reading that the Color subchannel carrier is 4.2hmz (or higher - not sure on the exact # ) compared to the NTSC 3.8mhz.

Now, your telling me that one Field of video is a repeat of other Field of video,i.e. Top field contains video info, bottum field contains same as TOP field? This would give PAL VHS an effective vertical resolution of 288 - thats kind of crappy IMO ( no offence ). I know you can do this with NTSC VHS - a progressive frame inside a interlaced signal ( I've done this in wanna-be indepent movies ) , but I have never seen this in a perfessional VHS. I know the DV PAL( *most* Broadcast video too ) is not like this.

Either your misinformed, or I'm reading your statements incorrectly, or I'm just baffled that PAL VHS would store video in this manner

@SatStorm - is your VHS material home made movies/video or professional video/movies? If what you say is true, then I'm interested in seeing if PAL VHS camcorders record the same way.

See www.100fps.com to see what I'm talking about.

[SatStorm]

No, it has nothing to do with all those you mention.

In the digital world we have only active values. Values.
In the analogue world we also have the "no value"
This is something most people can't understand.

VHS is 352 X 288 only active lines (officially)
or, you can easily say that it is 352 X 576 active + non active lines.

When you encode to mpeg 2 you have 2 choices if your source is VHS:
- You emulate the analogue world. So you encode to 352 X 576. That way, you replace those non active lines with a usefull value. Most encoders do this automatic and you don't even realise that you simply do this.
- You drop/filter those non active lines, so you end up "squeezing" the picture to the only active ones. The result is a 352 x 288 framesize totaly active. And because of the "squeezing" with PAL you are able to keep the interlace order. The active lines of both fields remain in an offset order, the interlace barrier are at 280 lines!

In theory you have the same result with both methods. In praxis -and because the D/A convertion inside DVD standalones ain't always accurate or the best possible, you might notice a better result with 352 X 576.
Overall, I suggest encoding to 352 X 288 only if your source is pure.

With SVHS all the lines are active. That's why the picture is better!
PAL is "lucky" because it can support interlace in digital even in 288 lines. You can't do this with NTSC. From the other hand, NTSC has a better trick: Incerse telecine...

And about http://www.100fps.com/ .... It isn't a bible you know... Just a site from so many for this subject...

This subject for the VHS resolution took place countless times in this and other forums. Just do a forum search and shall find all the info you need!

[Xtasy2002]

i think the general consensus is to capture it at 720X480

Yes.

and then convert to 352X480 MPEG-2

Yes.

with 3000kbps average bitrate or higher.

Nah. Unless it's a very short movie stick to around 2000 - 2500 bitrate. If you set the soften block noise up properly and high quality (slow) encoding, your video will look exactly the same as the VHS tape give or take a tiny bit of blur (that is hardly noticable). 3000 bitrate means you use an entire DVD for about 3.4 GB of data where 2000 average bitrate per 2 hours means you fit 2 full movies on 1 DVD.