Garbage in=garbage out, VHS to VCD useless!!

[vhelp]

@ mcard..

I've tried various xVCD formats as well as SVCD, and needless to say they're far better than a standard VCD.

Yes, I agree
-vhelp

[mcard]

Just thought I'd post some final concluding remarks in appreciation for everyone's contributions on this thread.

Well it looks like my original comments still hold true, that [my] VHS to VCD = crap, however in this case I'm certain it's due to the poor source (copy of handycam footage to VHS).

However, the same capture when encoded to SVCD is nearly identical to the original source, and that's saying alot coming from an extremely picky guy for little details.

Lesson learned: When playing around with old VHS tapes or Handycam footage, etc...stick to CVD or SVCD so you can get the full image quality of having both fields (480). Going to VCD at 240, you're loosing too much quality going non-interlaced, and no amount of filters, or special techniques will help you achieve that near identical quality to the original source. IF the source is excellent to begin with, ie/ DV, DVD, the difference between going non-interlaced (VCD) vs interlaced (SVCD) may not be as painfully obvious. For VHS home videos transferred from your Handycam, go with SVCD, CVD, or at the very least xVCD.

[kwag]

and no amount of filters, or special techniques will help you achieve that near identical quality to the original source.

Unless you process the VHS with an external high end Time Base Corrector ( Like the one built-in on every Panasonic DMR series ), and then the DVD created is actually better than the original VHS. I didn't think it was possible, but it's a fact
If you record with one of these machines in XP mode (Highest quality mode), and then you re-encode to 352x480 or 480x480, your result will look better than the original VHS too.

-kwag

[txpharoah]

Unless you process the VHS with an external high end Time Base Corrector ( Like the one built-in on every Panasonic DMR series ), and then the DVD created is actually better than the original VHS. I didn't think it was possible, but it's a fact

Yes, using good video hardware can improve several factors that give the appearance of improved quality. That's what restoration is all about.

But the TBC in the Panasonic machine is actually mid-grade at best. If you were impressed by that, you should see what a TBC from an intergrated JVC SVHS 9800 can do in conjunction with a standalone TBC.

[SatStorm]

And what about the TBC quality of Philips VR 1500 Match line VCR?

[indolikaa]

VideoCD has gotten a bad rap, just like 8-track tapes and RCA VideoDisks. :P

I've had good success with some older VHS and Beta material being moved to VCD. I still get requests from family for certain material in VCD format, and if your source is decent, you can output a VCD that doesn't grossly offend the senses.

[quickpick]

If you were impressed by that, you should see what a TBC from an intergrated JVC SVHS 9800 can do in conjunction with a standalone TBC.

Txpharoah, in addition to your recommendation about the JVC 9800, you also would add a standalone TBC? Does the quality improve that much? What model TBC would you recommend?

Thanks!

[txpharoah]

If you were impressed by that, you should see what a TBC from an intergrated JVC SVHS 9800 can do in conjunction with a standalone TBC.

Txpharoah, in addition to your recommendation about the JVC 9800, you also would add a standalone TBC? Does the quality improve that much? What model TBC would you recommend?

Thanks!

Yes.

I find the JVC TBC/DNR (which actually incorporates a formula of several objects meant to clean the video, not merely TBC) to remove shaking, stabilize the image, and clean out flecks of noise (especially red and blue noise), HOWEVER it does not help much on the synching of frames. For that, I use a dataVideo TBC-1000, which alone does not clean or fix as the JVC, but synchs frames and can remove other imperfections that the JVC does not.

The 9800 has 4MB and the 7900 has 2MB. The more the better.

Separate they are great. But together... WOW! It's a combo that can fix almost any tape you throw at it. There are only a few exceptions.

These are the kinds of toys you find in lower-budget pro businesses and cable companies that product and distribute their own work. The next step up from this would costs thousands.

For those that think "wow, expensive" just remember this is the last VCR you'll ever buy, and it'll almost guarantee perfect conversions to the next format (given that you use a good capture card and good software). For $400 or so for the JVC and $200 or so for the TBC, it's not bad.

[Sefy]

I Just love all these never ending quality debates where no one is going to convince anyone of anything, but they keep on trying

I'm a VCD addict! I Love it, I find it to be great quality! and absolutly not a single little bit of difference from SVCD when played on my TV :P

My Conclusions:
1 = VCD rocks, best most compatible Video Format!
2 = SVCD is useless, minimum 2 CD's per movie and no difference on TV!
3 = DVD is great, if I want high quality, i'll just buy the damn movie

[vitualis]

I personally think that VCD is pretty good as well... when for a good source.

However, I do think that VHS to VCD is not really worth the effort unless there is something REALLY good or important on the VHS.

Regards.

[Sefy]

@vitualis, you remember those who keep insisting that they can do a better quality when capturing from VHS ? I mean come on! you are using a low quality source, why on earth do you expect the output to be higher quality

[SatStorm]

Most of the people that believes they "clean" VHS and make it look better, actually clean noise from the first recording!
I had to admit the combo of temporal cleaner / dynamic noise reduction enchange a lot the picture by removing noise!

I also find good VCD, but I see on any >25" TV a colour problem. The colors are washed out. If I use the same settings but mpeg 2 (and interlace output) this problem disapears. That's why I like so much SxVCD.
And the VCD framesize on mpeg 2 is DVD compatible!

[indolikaa]

I also find good VCD, but I see on any >25" TV a colour problem.

Nonsense. That has nothing to do with VCD. That would be due to our fine assortment of nuclear weapons we have stationed nearby!

[mcard]

I Just love all these never ending quality debates where no one is going to convince anyone of anything, but they keep on trying

I'm a VCD addict! I Love it, I find it to be great quality! and absolutly not a single little bit of difference from SVCD when played on my TV :P

My Conclusions:
1 = VCD rocks, best most compatible Video Format!
2 = SVCD is useless, minimum 2 CD's per movie and no difference on TV!
3 = DVD is great, if I want high quality, i'll just buy the damn movie

Even if you had an excellent source for the VCD, let's say a high quality DVD rip, there is a HUGE difference in quality between the SVCD and VCD when played on TV. About 100% or 2X difference. The SVCD has better color, better motion, and more defined and sharper images overall. It's is very noticeable when you make a side by side comparison, unless you're talking about a tiny TV. It is impossible for VCD to be as good as SVCD when it only supports 240 lines non-interlaced.

It's like saying you can't notice the difference between a VHS video and a DVD on the TV.....well, perhaps some people can't tell the difference.

[vitualis]

I don't think there is too much point in flogging the dead horse.

I agree that SVCD looks noticeably better than VCD on my TV to my eyes but I also believe that Sefy is experienced enough to make a proper SVCD. I'll leave it at the fact that Sefy's subjective sensory experience is that VCD and SVCD is about the same. If anything, this simply highlights that we are all difference and that the experience of "quality" is far from objective.

I personally still prefer VCD simply because of it's excellent compatibility and the fact that it is easy to make (and from my sources, they look okay -- about as good as VHS without the the analogue noise and VHS still looks reasonably good to me).

Regards.

[Sefy]

@mcard, as an addon to what vitualis said, I own a 29" TV and a high quality Pioneer DV525 Player, and even using samples of others for VCD/SVCD i've seen NO visible difference between VCD and SVCD, and like vitualis i've also seen some excellent quality VHS tapes, especialy when it's brand new. But the problem with VHS is that it loses quality at each playback.

[Alan69]

Everyone always says that the resolutions are nearly the same. That isn't correct.

Say your VCR can do roughly 330 lines of resolution. That's LINES, NOT PIXELS. As in a white background, with 330 black lines on it. That equals 660 PIXELS, there are 330 bits of black with 330 bits of white in between. Many people just do not get this fact, they don't really understand how TV resolutions are measured by lines. Look up the specs, but also remember that damn near everyone making a webpage is a lay person and uses the same wrong definition of lines, YOU HAVE TO HUNT LIKE HELL on the internet to find a correct definition of lines that doesn't say it's equal to pixels. It's that many black lines on a white background, in other words twice as many pixels. If you don't believe that I'm right and most of the experts are incorrect on that fact look it up for yourself.

So SVCD is much closer to what your TV can actually do. Even then a tape is analog, the transitions can be part way through a pixel, they can only resolve at maximum that many black to white transitions..

That said VCD can look ok from a good source, but of course it helps to have the best starting source possible. That way the software can use as many factors as possible to determine what any one pixel should be at any one time. But it still SHOULD look a bit soft compared to a good tape, it is a lower resolution.. I'd jump up to SVCD, and do noise filtering etc to get rid of as much useless info as possible and keep the bitrate low.

And VCD vs SVCD looking about the same has a lot to do with what you're watching. I can INSTANTLY tell whether a Farscape episode is VCD or SVCD, with movie quality sets and imaging it shows up in every frame that isn't black. It simply demands the higher resolution and bitrate, many shows with simpler sets show very little difference. I've seen eps of normal shows that do look about the same in either format..
Even then Farscape in VCD looks better than most everything else in SVCD, it simply does a lot to have a better starting picture..

Alan

[Sefy]

@Alan, did you notice that last line you wrote there ?

"Even then Farscape in VCD looks better than most everything else in SVCD, it simply does a lot to have a better starting picture"

[txpharoah]

@vitualis, you remember those who keep insisting that they can do a better quality when capturing from VHS ? I mean come on! you are using a low quality source, why on earth do you expect the output to be higher quality

My VHS VCR outputs crap. But the same tape output through a TBC and SVHS VCR with TBC/DNR filters "restores" what was already there. A few quick filters on the computer (used properly) can "remove" noise, and though it may "harm" quality, the "harm" is outside what the tv would see anyway. However, what you are "removing" was seen. Now it is not seen.

So the outcome IS improved quality, with the understanding that quality is relative not only to your eyes, but the device on which you view. In most cases, this is the tv. Your trading one problem for another, but given the limits of our eyes and our equipment, it is an improvement.

I've got dozens and dozens of tapes where I'd bet you a million bucks the DVD was better. All it takes is knowledge of video and how to properly apply the concepts for proper output. C'mon, you should know that.

[snowmoon]

VCD vs SVCD...

On most TV's that I've seen there is a visible increase in quality with SVCD. Assuming similar or identical source.

On my TV VCD is UNUSABLE. A 42" 16:9 progressive scanning display just can't make 352x240 look decent. SVCD is a minimum in order not to look like total crap. VCD macroblocks as big as my hands!

But like many people have said... professional VCD's are quite nice even approaching SVCD quality. For the most part "It's the source stupid". The range of objective quality for all three formats in question VHS, VCD, and SVCD overlap to a degree ( DVD to a lesser extent and mainly from poor mastering or cramming ). You can argue on the degree, but it's there. So CAN VCD be as good as VHS.... yes, how often can it be done... probably not that often because of limitations in the format.

[Sefy]

@snowmoon, out of all respect, on the back projection 40" and more TV's nothing is usable! the quality of those TV's with all due respect to those who adore quality so much, it's HURRIBLE!!!

I'll never understand why people don't just buy Projectors instead! they would cost less then the TV, take less space, and have higher quality and larger screen, even here in Israel they cost less then those large TV's.

A Friend of mine tried to tell me how DivX looks so much better using TV-Out on his 42" Toshiba TV, I was looking at it, no matter from what distance, it's simply HURRIBLE beyond believe! I asked him to put a DVD so I can compare the quality, and it was equally hurrible

[SatStorm]

Because of my job, I'm able to compare superbit DVDs on huge plasma and LCD screens, costing lots of €€€€€€€€
Also, I could test to CRT screens with pixel plus like technologies...

It looks like crap.
Also, VHS/SVHS and DVB channels. All look horrible...

Only a studio Digital VHS recording looked decent.

I believe that the technology of bit screens and digital picture ain't good yet. Compression has issues..... Soon or later technicks and built in filters in the screen shall appear, because if the market continues like this, I don't see a bright future on sales.

The best thing you can buy today is a CRT 29" - 32' with 100Hz (PAL) or a DLP projector. The problem with the projectors IMHO is that they got a limited lamp life, and can't be used on the daylight... So, you get a low entry DLP AND a good CRT TV if you love to watch big and use them both.
I don't suggest myself big screens like those also...
BTW: CVD (SVCD) looked better VCD but not that much better SxVCD!

[dcsos]

This is FLOGGING a dead horse

But that DEAD HORSE is VHS

and I think if you had to project the image in TIMES SQUARE on the jumbo tron SCREEN

I think all of us would prefer the original VHS
to the inferior quality of VCD and SVCD over the original (potentially)

[willy_annand]

So I guess DVD to VCD = VHS, VHS to SVCD = VHS, but VHS to VCD = crap.

Well, based on my experience, I have not done any DVD to anything (I can afford to buy my DVDs)

I go from VHS to SVCD and get VHS quality, using AVI_IO to capture, TMPGEnc to convert and Nero to burn.

Anything to VCD = Crap, you cannot expect good quality at 320x240 (288) and only 1150 kbit/sec not to mention the limits of MPEG-1.

Since getting my DVD Writer, I capture my VHS to Half-D1 spec: 352 x 480 pixels MPEG2 with audio as 16 bit Stereo 48KHz and convert it to AC3 with HeadAC3he.

This gives me the capability to do "Double Feature" DVDs.

For clients however, I capture their VHS to Full D-1 spec.

[willy_annand]

How does this progressive VCD play on an interlaced TV?

Your DVD hardware handles the conversion.

To my mind, it falls into the "Its Magic" realm, as I have no idea how it is accomplished, only that it happens...

[Sefy]

@SatStorm, you actually agree with me that Back Projection Large Screen TV's are garbage ?

[SatStorm]

No Garbage, but if the source is a DVD/VCD/SVCD then on those screens they all look crap!

Use hi-end Filters and devices and a DVD video can look good on a Back Projection Large Screen. Of course, the price of those solutions is SciFi for the mainstream costumer...

So, for us, the typical enthusiasts of the digital movie technologies, those back projection large screens (a technology based on videoprojectors...) is useless if the source is a DVD, or any form of video on CD.....

[Sefy]

Oh! There is a God! someone finally agrees with me! it's not my imagination anymore! i'm not alone in this world!

[hoyboy]

I have had a good look at rear-pro tv's and yes, the quality of the picture can be lacking. But they are selling like hot-cakes, mainly due to the much reduced price (at least in australia) compared to say 12-18 months ago. Most people will put up with the quality if they can get a huge screen at a good price- where as some people want the best picture, whatever it costs.

[SatStorm]

In Europe we are with PAL and we gonna stay with DVB 720 x 576 for a long long time. PAL is limited: Without filtering and technics you can't have quality beyond 36". Those things costs right now.
It is like the audio amplifiers in a teens car: The Teenager don't care for quality, only for Volume! Same story here: Those huge screens don't care for quality, only size! People won't realise that the result suck (as it really do with what I see...)

Just an example to understand: Play a 15 year old VHS tape, to a mainstream VHS player (mid 90s technology) and watch it on a 36" TV. It looks awfull, right?

Well this is how a DVD looks on a big screen with pixel plus like technologies! And the difference between CVD and DVD is like watching on this screen a VHS recorded in EP and SP mode!


From the other hand, I'm amazed on what the new VCRs can do to those awfull VHS tapes. So, if with the correct filtering VHS can look like this on a good TV, then it is a matter of time to appear solutions to boost the quality on the media we use (VCD, SVCD, DVD...). You can do for example great stuff using a PC and a projector today, from any source. But this is for me and you, the enthusiast. It is not a solution for the mainstream costumer.
I believe that in the close future, after the rise of more voices against this situation (QUALITY! WE WANT QUALITY NOT ONLY SIZE!!!) solutions gonna appear.

But now, anything I saw sucks a lot with a DVD source! Don't mention the other formats....