Blu-Ray - Will it provide better VHS to DVD copies??

[dvd-dude]

I'm just wondering if when the new Blu-Ray format comes out (or it's competitor) if we will be shooting ourselves in the foot for converting VHS to current DVD-/+Rs.

For example, will we be able to get better results using Blu-Ray - more genuine, archival quality transfers from VHS to DVD? Or is it more of a analog>digital conversion issue that will not be resolved by simply allowing more storage space?

i.e. is a current VHS to DVD-R transfer done today pretty much the best I can do given the limitations of the conversion process? Or will Blu-Ray give us archival quality copies and make me wish I could redo them all?

Thanks for any feedback you can offer.

-DVD-Dude

[yoda313]

Hi,

Whats the max capture cards can do today??? 15mbps????? If so than you'd be able to capture more at the MAXIMUM data rate to get the most without sacrificing quality. BUT you still can't get better quality than the video source. I think there is some realistic limit of what you'd capture at. Besides Disc space on your pc/mac would be another limitation. Unless you have a few 200gb drives capping hours at max bitrate would really take up a ton of space for debatable quality improvement.

Kevin

[lordsmurf]

Bluray won't do anything for tapes.

[yoda313]

Bluray won't do anything for tapes.

Hi,

Well it won't improve quality but could you imagine fitting vcd on a nextgen disc???

You could fit a few days worth at vcd level

kevin

[dvd-dude]

That's a good point.... the upside is I could consolodate what I have converted of old home movies onto a few discs!

However, does anyone know what the data transfer rate of blu-ray is supposed to be? Will the Blu-Ray DVD format still use MPEG2 compression? If so it seems like it wouldn't make a difference in quality... I see very little difference between SP and XP when coming from a VHS source to a DVD recorder... I assume SP is somewhere around 6 mbps, and XP is around 8. So if the codec is what limits the resolution I guess you could make it 100 mbps and it wouldn't matter. Am I right in making this assumption? I'm just trying to understand if there is or isn't a difference in quality and why that might be.

Thanks again!

-DVD-Dude

[yoda313]

Hi,

https://www.videohelp.com/glossary?H#HD-DVD

HD-DVD (HD stands for both high-density and high-definition) was under development before DVD came out. It finally emerged in 2003. Some high-definition versions of HD-DVD use the original DVD physical format but depend on new video encoding technology such as H.264 to fit high-definition video in the space that used to hold only standard-definition video. High-density formats use blue or violet lasers to read smaller pits, increasing data capacity to around 15 to 30 GB per layer. High-density formats use high-definition MPEG-2 video (for compatibility with ATSC and DVB HD broadcasts) and may also use advanced encoding formats, probably supporting 1080p24 video. HD discs will not play on existing players.
As of early 2003 there are five proposals for HD-DVD, with the possibility of others:
HD-DVD-9, aka HD-9
Advanced Optical Disc (AOD)
Blu-ray Disc (BD)
Blue-HD-DVD-1
Blue-HD-DVD-2
http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#3.13

I assume its very similar for blu-ray. It looks like its a hybrid mpeg2 since its meant to operate at higher highdef resolutions than the 720x480 current dvd standard.

Kevin

[Baldrick]

mpeg2,vc-1 and h264 compression.
up to 36 mbit/s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BluRay

[davideck]

I see very little difference between SP and XP when coming from a VHS source to a DVD recorder... I assume SP is somewhere around 6 mbps, and XP is around 8. So if the codec is what limits the resolution I guess you could make it 100 mbps and it wouldn't matter. Am I right in making this assumption?
-DVD-Dude

I would disagree. I have tried recording analog sources to mini DV tape. At 25 mbps, I saw none of the MPEG2 artifacts that are so prevalent even at 8mbps. The miniDV copy was as good as the source. This leads me to believe that it should be possible to record VHS, SVHS, etc. to a higher bitrate format with significantly better quality than DVD captures are providing today.

[coolj1]

so this is gonna be another war for standardship ......there's the DVD Alliance vs the DVD Forum (+ vs -) Now there's Blue Ray vs HD DVD.
"Here We Go Again "
Thank god i still have my VHS tapes in the attic.
I would love to see the prices on them babies.

[dvd-dude]

What about lines of resolution? Is that another limiting factor in this process? If a DVD already has far more than a VHS but that doesn't resolve the issue I'm guessing a Blu-Ray with HD definition still won't do us any good from VHS.

I guess it all comes down to whether or not Blu-Ray will provide high bit rates that would compensate for the artifacts you can get when transferring older VHS tapes to DVD. Does anyone know for sure if this is true?

Thanks for the discussion... this is helping a lot!

-DVD-Dude

[yoda313]

What about lines of resolution? Is that another limiting factor in this process? If a DVD already has far more than a VHS but that doesn't resolve the issue I'm guessing a Blu-Ray with HD definition still won't do us any good from VHS.

I guess it all comes down to whether or not Blu-Ray will provide high bit rates that would compensate for the artifacts you can get when transferring older VHS tapes to DVD. Does anyone know for sure if this is true?

Thanks for the discussion... this is helping a lot!

-DVD-Dude

Hi,

Reread davidecks post:

I would disagree. I have tried recording analog sources to mini DV tape. At 25 mbps, I saw none of the MPEG2 artifacts that are so prevalent even at 8mbps. The miniDV copy was as good as the source. This leads me to believe that it should be possible to record VHS, SVHS, etc. to a higher bitrate format with significantly better quality than DVD captures are providing today.

At least his experience says a higher bitrate will help smooth out compression blockiness.

Kevin

[lordsmurf]

If you use 9000k MPEG-2 and get blocks, your encoding methods are flawed.

[slacker]

VHS transfers on my dvd recorder yield no blocks on XP mode (8700 average bitrate), and visible (though few) blocks on SP mode (4220 average bitrate). Other than the blocks, which are few and far between, I am actually amazed that even by halving the bitrate the video comes out virtually identical to the one at 8700, to my eyes. Even for those extra special tapes, you wonder if it makes any sense to capture ONLY 1 hour on a dvd, rather than two.

[zorankarapancev]

slacker,

Which DVD recorder did you buy?

[vhelp]

Are you basing your results from your vhs to dvd (via dvd recorder)
from your pc monitor, or tv set ??

To date, there are no hardware dvd recorders that implement any
kind of IVTC in the recording stage. That is such an impact to
quality. If there were such a feature, *then* and *only then*
would a dvd recorder be the final frontier to the one-button
does it all, *and* produces fanstastic (like-original) source quality
if from a Film relm.

Until then, you'll almost always have macroblocks or MB's (pixelation)
in your dvd recorder vob's.

DVD Recorders record the full 29.970 fps (be it Telecine; Progressive;
or Interlace) source. It does not record the source as 23.976 fps
to the vob's when the given source is Film (aka, Telecine) nor does it
re-Telecine/IVTC during the recording stage. It simply records the
original 29.970 fps, and that is all

So, because it is encoding these interlace areas, you will see the MB 's
especially in these fields, and the finished vob's will be 29.970 fps,
and dvd2avi will read these vob's as Interlace (or in some cases, and
depending on dvd recorder) will see dvd2avi's window report as:

PPP II; PPP II; PPP II;

This is how dvd2avi would report, if you were to encode an MPEG and
run it through pulldown.exe, for an IVTC and report as Film / Progressive,
..as most Commercial DVD movies do

-vhelp 3448