Best Hardware for VHS Digitization?

[therock003]

I want to convert my OLD VHS tapes to digital format so i can finally discard them and save some space. Thing is, i want to choose the right equipment for this. There seem to be some all-in products, that include a cassette player, and can record directly to DVD, or store to HardDrive/USB Stick. These devices though also seem to cost like 200-300 Euro minimum so i dont have all this money to spend for something of such little importance as this.

Although, I do own an Old Hitachi standalone VHS player that hopefully can playback this cassettes without chewing the tape, so i think i'll be needing for something to output the video to.

My question is, how reliable are this PC accessories, and how well a job are they supposed to do?

I found this for as little as 23 Euro, which is reasonable, but is the capturing going to be worth it?

[sanlyn]

The Hitachi player should suffice, if its transport is still OK.

You need more than the device you showed in the post. Go here:
http://www.digitalfaq.com/
start with the contents index in the left-hand panel.

[therock003]

What more? This is actually a receiver for video and s-video signals. Provided that my VHS outputs video signal i can use this device to capture it on my PC. The only other device i see on the link is something called a TBC, that costs 700-1000 USD which seems like crazy money...

[matt9b]

If you want to convert home VHS videos, try these:

Roxio VHS to DVD converter with VideoGlide (IMPORTANT to use VideoGlide and not the stock software for best quality)

OR

Canopus ADVC-55 (However, be aware that this doesn't work well with all old or worn VHS video tapes)

OR

a lot of other USB converters out there, they can be tricky to find, particularly for mac, just keep google searching.

Just make sure you have relatively low expectations, as the technology doesn't yet seem to exist on the consumer market to convert VHS videos in high resolution for prosperity. Unfortunately, the flawed argument is that vhs has a low resolution anyway.. but most tecchies fail to understand that a.) horizontal resolution is by and large only restricted by the digital capture resolution and b.) a high resolution digital grab of a VHS will look better on a high res tv than a standard res grab that is digitally interpolated up. One day, the industry will catch up + people will understand this but not yet

The Canopus ADVC-300 is (according to public opinion) the best you can get in terms of image quality *at the moment*, but might not work well (if at all) for some old or worn home vhs videos.

From my experience, I had to use the Roxio USB to capture some old home VHS vids because the tapes had degraded too far for the ADVC to work well.

[DB83]

What wonderful advice above.

Telling someone to obtain Mac software for a sytem that may use Windows.

[matt9b]

What wonderful advice above.

Telling someone to obtain Mac software for a sytem that may use Windows.

someone got out of bed the wrong side this morning!

I haven't told anyone to obtain Mac software, my advice will work on both PC and Mac.

[DB83]

And to now answer the OP's question.

Since you appear to be on a tight budget then the unit you show will be just as good as anything similar.

The unit will come with some software. It may even be a cut down version of Ulead Video Studio which is quite a respectable piece of software.

[DB83]

What wonderful advice above.

Telling someone to obtain Mac software for a sytem that may use Windows.

I haven't told anyone to obtain Mac software, and won't be dragged into an argument

So what is this from your earlier post...

"Roxio VHS to DVD converter with VideoGlide (IMPORTANT to use VideoGlide and not the stock software for best quality)"

Or if I am wrong do show me where I can download a copy of VideoGlide that works on a PC.

[matt9b]

a cut down version of Ulead Video Studio which is quite a respectable piece of software.

Oh the irony!

What wonderful advice above.

Telling someone to obtain Windows software for a system that may use OS X.
Sorry, I couldn't resist

[poisondeathray]

a cut down version of Ulead Video Studio which is quite a respectable piece of software.

Oh the irony!

What wonderful advice above.

Telling someone to obtain Windows software for a system that may use OS X.
Sorry, I couldn't resist

His profile says Windows, and the 1st post says "how reliable are this PC accessories" . I don't know , maybe he's using a Mac

[matt9b]

And to now answer the OP's question.

There are a lot of USB capture devices out there, which will do the job although they don't always give the best quality picture.

I have personal experience with the Roxio device, and it has recorded my old worn home movies where the ADVC couldn't.

As with most things windows based, you'll find a lot of software out there for PC, it's pretty easy to find. Mac OS X is a bit more tricky on the other hand. VideoGlide is there for Mac users. If you're using ADVC, you can use the free capture software that comes with almost any Operating system, both windows and mac.

[matt9b]

His profile says Windows, and the 1st post says "how reliable are this PC accessories" . I don't know , maybe he's using a Mac

I never for one moment assumed he was using a Mac. I did however mis-remember that VideoGlide was PC software. No big deal, there are plenty of options. Looking at DB83's posts in other threads, it's funny that he's lecturing someone else because he thinks they've jumped to a conclusion anyway. Lol! Everyone chill we're all doing our best to help

[poisondeathray]

Why would you recommend VideoGlide for quality ? It captures at 640x480 . That's enough reason already to discard it.

PS I'm chill. I just wanted to use that smiley

[matt9b]

Why would you recommend VideoGlide for quality ? It captures at 640x480 . That's enough reason already to discard it.

PS I'm chill. I just wanted to use that smiley

Roxio's inbuilt software throws away every other line in the image, and it heavily compresses the output. It makes stuff look like a youtube video. VideoGlide doesn't throw away every other line, and offers less lossy compression, so it's preferable. The difference is vast. There's just no contest.

What would be better, is if we had a transparent device and software that could capture at any resolution we choose including HD, but as mentioned earlier this doesn't exist yet on the consumer market.

[poisondeathray]

Roxio's inbuilt software throws away every other line in the image, and it heavily compresses the output. It makes stuff look like a youtube video. VideoGlide doesn't throw away every other line, and offers less lossy compression, so it's preferable. The difference is vast. There's just no contest.

What would be better, is if we had a transparent device and software that could capture at any resolution we choose including HD, but as mentioned earlier this doesn't exist yet on the consumer market.

Define "consumer market" and price range . Lots of people use blackmagic intensity pro or it's derivatives (intensity shuttle) for HD or SD. Even works on Mac/PC/Linux

[matt9b]

Why would you recommend VideoGlide for quality ? It captures at 640x480 . That's enough reason already to discard it.

Roxio's inbuilt software throws away every other line in the image, and it heavily compresses the output. It makes stuff look like a youtube video. VideoGlide doesn't throw away every other line, and offers less lossy compression, so it's preferable. The difference is vast. There's just no contest.

What would be better, is if we had a transparent device and software that could capture at any resolution we choose including HD, but as mentioned earlier this doesn't exist yet on the consumer market.

Define "consumer market" and price range . Lots of people use blackmagic intensity pro or it's derivatives (intensity shuttle) for HD or SD. Even works on Mac/PC/Linux

I'll take this that you now agree with my points about the Roxio software vs. VideoGlide.

Are you saying that the blackmagic intensity pro can capture VHS in HD without digitally up-rezzing or digitally interpolating up?

[poisondeathray]

I'll take this that you now agree with my points about the Roxio software vs. VideoGlide.

Not necessarily. If what you say is true, I wouldn't use either. They are both bad.

How is it capturing at 640x480 ? Is it a crop ? or is it a resize ?

If it's doing the resize, How is it doing the resize ? There are proper ways, and very very bad ways of resizing interlaced footage. You mash the fields.

Are you saying that the blackmagic intensity pro can capture VHS in HD without digitally up-rezzing or digitally interpolating up?

No, because VHS isn't HD ...

If you have an HD signal e.g. HDMI feed from a HD camcorder, then you can capture HD

[matt9b]

Not necessarily. If what you say is true, I wouldn't use either. They are both bad.

There's no question of that. But you if forced to use either, it's preferrable to use Videoglide over roxio's own software, because it doesn't throw away as much information and the end result is far better. The difference is just vast, and I guarantee that if I had the chance to show you comparison footage that you'd agree

How is it capturing at 640x480 ? Is it a crop ? or is it a resize ?

You're assuming I said it was capturing at 640x480. I'm didn't.

The settings in the software state 720 x 576

I'm still not convinced that it's capturing at 640x480, but if you want to know that information for sure, ask the developer.

If it's doing the resize, How is it doing the resize ? There are proper ways, and very very bad ways of resizing interlaced footage. You mash the fields.

Again, this is a question for the developer

No, because VHS isn't HD ... If you have an HD signal e.g. HDMI feed from a HD camcorder, then you can capture HD

It's not that simple. VHS is analog, and this is the key factor here. A VHS analog signal digitized at HD, will play back noticeably better on an HD TV than a VHS analog signal digitized at SD and resized for playback on an HD TV. On the digitally resized image, you'll see blocks, whereas the natively HD capture (without digital resizing) will look visibly better.

It's a common mistake to believe otherwise. In practise, not only is the horizontal resolution of the analog signal limited by the digital capture resolution, but once you cross from analog to the digital domain, you're changing the format of the signal, and this is key. To simplify, think of it as analog resizing vs. digital resizing. I've touched this further above. I guarantee you that you will see a visibly better result from capturing VHS at a higher digital resolution. The difference is vast.

[poisondeathray]

It's not that simple. VHS is analog, and this is the key factor here. A VHS analog signal digitized at HD, will play back noticeably better on an HD TV than a VHS analog signal digitized at SD and resized for playback on an HD TV. On the digitally resized image, you'll see blocks, whereas the natively HD capture (without digital resizing) will look visibly better.

It's a common mistake to believe otherwise. In practise, not only is the horizontal resolution of the analog signal limited by the digital capture resolution, but once you cross from analog to the digital domain, you're changing the format of the signal, and this is key. To simplify, think of it as analog resizing vs. digital resizing. I've touched this further above. I guarantee you that you will see a visibly better result from capturing VHS at a higher digital resolution. The difference is vast.

It is that simple. You cannot exceed the initial resolution. The digitial equivalent resolution of VHS is a lot less than 720x576 for Y'. You're just wasting bandwidth.

However, if you are scaling, the method in which you scale is important, and there are special considerations for interlaced vs. Progressive.

Use search this has been discussed before...

[matt9b]

It's not that simple. VHS is analog, and this is the key factor here. A VHS analog signal digitized at HD, will play back noticeably better on an HD TV than a VHS analog signal digitized at SD and resized for playback on an HD TV. On the digitally resized image, you'll see blocks, whereas the natively HD capture (without digital resizing) will look visibly better.

It's a common mistake to believe otherwise. In practise, not only is the horizontal resolution of the analog signal limited by the digital capture resolution, but once you cross from analog to the digital domain, you're changing the format of the signal, and this is key. To simplify, think of it as analog resizing vs. digital resizing. I've touched this further above. I guarantee you that you will see a visibly better result from capturing VHS at a higher digital resolution. The difference is vast.

It is that simple. You cannot exceed the initial resolution. The digitial equivalent resolution of VHS is a lot less than 720x576 for Y'. You're just wasting bandwidth.

However, if you are scaling, the method in which you scale is important, and there are special considerations for interlaced vs. Progressive.

Use search this has been discussed before...

I beg to differ. I'm not going to use search and have to correct every thread on this topic, I've seen literally hundreds of threads on this online, the misconception is very common . You cannot exceed the initial resolution, but the initial resolution is analog, i.e. not fixed into pixels. What you're describing, although a common misconception, you simply can't correlate analog resolution to digital resolution in such a basic manner; they are two very unique formats. Horizontal resolution of analog is not defined quantitatively. You're making a quantitative capture of a qualitative source. You're therefore going to get a closer / better result for HD playback, out of an HD res digital capture. Upscaling a digital capture is going to result in blocks. Making an HD CAPTURE initially, won't result in these blocks. Yes, it depends on the algorithm used, but if you capture at HD, then you no longer need to digitally up-scale. The end result will look closer to the original video footage on an HDTV.

If the theory behind what I've said is new to you, that's ok, don't worry. Try it in practise, and you'll see, I GUARANTEE you that an HD capture of a VHS source will give a better result when displayed on an HDTV. I'm sure you'll still disagree and refuse to try it, but I've explained this a few times now to the best of my ability and time will allow, I'm going to let this lie and move on.

[poisondeathray]

It's not that simple. VHS is analog, and this is the key factor here. A VHS analog signal digitized at HD, will play back noticeably better on an HD TV than a VHS analog signal digitized at SD and resized for playback on an HD TV. On the digitally resized image, you'll see blocks, whereas the natively HD capture (without digital resizing) will look visibly better.

It's a common mistake to believe otherwise. In practise, not only is the horizontal resolution of the analog signal limited by the digital capture resolution, but once you cross from analog to the digital domain, you're changing the format of the signal, and this is key. To simplify, think of it as analog resizing vs. digital resizing. I've touched this further above. I guarantee you that you will see a visibly better result from capturing VHS at a higher digital resolution. The difference is vast.

It is that simple. You cannot exceed the initial resolution. The digitial equivalent resolution of VHS is a lot less than 720x576 for Y'. You're just wasting bandwidth.

However, if you are scaling, the method in which you scale is important, and there are special considerations for interlaced vs. Progressive.

Use search this has been discussed before...

I beg to differ. You cannot exceed the initial resolution, but the initial resolution is analog, i.e. not fixed into pixels. What you're describing is a very common misconception, but you simply can't correlate analog resolution to digital resolution in such a simple manner; they are two very unique things. Horizontal resolution of analog is not defined quantitatively. You're making a quantitative capture of a qualitative source. You're therefore going to get a closer / better result for HD playback, out of an HD res digital capture. Upscaling a digital capture is going to result in blocks. Making an HD CAPTURE initially, won't result in these blocks. Yes, it depends on the algorithm used, but if you capture at HD, then you no longer need to digitally up-scale. The end result will look closer to the original video footage on an HDTV.

If the theory behind what I've said is new to you, that's ok, don't worry. Try it in practise, and you'll see, I GUARANTEE you that an HD capture of a VHS source will give a better result when displayed on an HDTV.

You're correct that it's analog, that's why I said "digitial equivalents." You should read up on this or actually test it. It's a common misconception. Do you think you're the first person to think of capturing VHS in HD ?

Hint : use search. And not only on this forum. It's been tested and discussed ad nauseum.

[matt9b]

It's not that simple. VHS is analog, and this is the key factor here. A VHS analog signal digitized at HD, will play back noticeably better on an HD TV than a VHS analog signal digitized at SD and resized for playback on an HD TV. On the digitally resized image, you'll see blocks, whereas the natively HD capture (without digital resizing) will look visibly better.

It's a common mistake to believe otherwise. In practise, not only is the horizontal resolution of the analog signal limited by the digital capture resolution, but once you cross from analog to the digital domain, you're changing the format of the signal, and this is key. To simplify, think of it as analog resizing vs. digital resizing. I've touched this further above. I guarantee you that you will see a visibly better result from capturing VHS at a higher digital resolution. The difference is vast.

It is that simple. You cannot exceed the initial resolution. The digitial equivalent resolution of VHS is a lot less than 720x576 for Y'. You're just wasting bandwidth.

However, if you are scaling, the method in which you scale is important, and there are special considerations for interlaced vs. Progressive.

Use search this has been discussed before...

I beg to differ. You cannot exceed the initial resolution, but the initial resolution is analog, i.e. not fixed into pixels. What you're describing is a very common misconception, but you simply can't correlate analog resolution to digital resolution in such a simple manner; they are two very unique things. Horizontal resolution of analog is not defined quantitatively. You're making a quantitative capture of a qualitative source. You're therefore going to get a closer / better result for HD playback, out of an HD res digital capture. Upscaling a digital capture is going to result in blocks. Making an HD CAPTURE initially, won't result in these blocks. Yes, it depends on the algorithm used, but if you capture at HD, then you no longer need to digitally up-scale. The end result will look closer to the original video footage on an HDTV.

If the theory behind what I've said is new to you, that's ok, don't worry. Try it in practise, and you'll see, I GUARANTEE you that an HD capture of a VHS source will give a better result when displayed on an HDTV.

You're correct that it's analog, that's why I said "digitial equivalents." You should read up on this or actually test it. It's a common misconception. Do you think you're the first person to think of capturing VHS in HD ?

Hint : use search. And not only on this forum. It's been tested and discussed ad nauseum.

I'm not going to use search and have to correct every thread on this topic, I've seen literally hundreds of threads on this online, the misconception is quite widespread . You're assuming I'm suggesting that HD capture will increase the source's resolution. I'm not. You cannot exceed the initial resolution, but the initial resolution is analog, i.e. not fixed into pixels, so a higher resolution digital capture will end up with a result much closer to the original.

I wouldn't normally use wikipedia as a source but it's the closest to hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/576i
"the number of pixels per line is an arbitrary choice.. Analogue television signals have no pixels; they are rastered in scan lines, but along each line the signal is continuous."

Do some research To simplify, think of analog horizontal lines as graduated gradients as opposed to fixed pixels. Once you get that concept, you can move forwards to think about how you can best capture those gradients in digital pixels.

Values above ca 500 columns are enough for conventional broadcast television, but higher values should be used for HD broadcast of SD analog sources.

No one is claiming that an HD capture of a VHS source will increase the resolution of the original footage. It will however increase the resolution of the capture. If the theory behind what I've said is new to you, that's ok, don't worry. Try it in practise, and you'll see, I GUARANTEE you that an HD capture of a VHS source will give a far better / closer result to the original, when displayed on an HDTV.

I appreciate that you might not have considered the above before, but I suggest trying it out before you debunk it as untrue, you'll definitely find a noticeable difference when displayed on HDTV. Whilst I appreciate the debate, I've explained this a few times now, and as much as time will allow, I have to let this rest.

Good luck!

[Brad]

Horizontal resolution of analog is not defined quantitatively. You're making a quantitative capture of a qualitative source.

So you believe that analog information can't be measured. Electrical engineers would disagree. You apparently ignored the diagram in the Wikipedia article showing the maximum number of brightness variations per line, in MHz.

Though, if you have example images to offer of your superior HDTV method, I'm sure we would all love to see.

[DB83]

So I got out of bed on the wrong side again and what do I find....

Lovely discussion and, of course, totally irrelevent to the OP's question.

Best not to argue with matt9b. He knows more about all of this then the rest who post on these forums put together.

Now where is hech54 when you really need him ?

[therock003]

Guys i just saw these posts all at once. First Off just to settle this, I'm using Windows, not using MAC. So Windows software suggestions should suite my needs. I didnt think to mention this beforehand.

What's more important here Software or Hardware? I made this thread in order to get specifics on equipment and results based on hardware use, yet i kept reading messages about software and software techniques. I'm confused...

As Far as I Understand, the reading of the analog tape and processing happens inside the VHS player, and then the signal is fed externally through the yellow little cable, but instead of being directed at a TV Monitor, it goes into the Video Capturing device. So the capturing device should see what a TV should. Isnt that the principle here? This is what i was basing my thoughts on..

[DB83]

The hardware is the most important but if you are on a tight budget you can try the low-end stuff which might suite your needs.

Your profile shows Win98 but I suspect you have upgraded since then. If you are using XP then the device and software that comes with it should be fine. Vista is known to have some problems. I do not know about Win7.

For your last comment, the simple answer is YES. No need to confuse you any more on that.

[Cauptain]

Hardware: Roxio VHS to DVD
Software: Virtualdub / AmarecTV
Codec Record: UT video Codec
Restoration video files: Avisynth scripts
H264 converter: Megui, Handbrake, Ripbot264, Virtualdub...etc

[therock003]

Yes i have a computer with win 2k3 server a laptop with Vista, and a newer desktop with 7. OS and software selection is not an issue.

I'm only wondering how the procedure differs between low-end and high-end stuff.

For example how different will the results be comparing my 23 Euro device and the Canopus 200Euro that was suggested to me. Also how relevant are other Devices, like TBC and whatnot...?

[DB83]

The proceedure does not alter. In every hardware capture device there is a chip that digitises an analogue source(your VHS) in to a digital one. The software uses that digital source to create a movie clip using compression - you could, theoretically, capture uncompressed if your PC was powerful enough - not the place to go in to that in detail as there are plenty of topics available.

The Canopus device is more 'high-end' but it only does one thing - convert that analogue stream in to a DV stream. From that you can either use software such as WinDv to copy that stream in to a DV for use on your PC or use sofware to transcode the DV stream in to another format. If, again, you search the forum you will find people who love these units and people who hate them.

But that really applies to any hardware. 'Best' is relative to your own experience. If you have only used one item then you have nothing to compare that with so it can be described as 'best' for you. On the other hand, if someone has used many different ones you can form a better opinion about what is 'best'.

A TBC - Time Base Corrector - is quite relevent as a VHS source is by no means a steady stream. It may look fine on that tv since the transmission remains in the analogue domain but once that stream becomes digital then any flaws in the stream become apparent. The TBC works to correct those flaws.

[poisondeathray]

I beg to differ. You cannot exceed the initial resolution, but the initial resolution is analog, i.e. not fixed into pixels. What you're describing is a very common misconception, but you simply can't correlate analog resolution to digital resolution in such a simple manner; they are two very unique things. Horizontal resolution of analog is not defined quantitatively. You're making a quantitative capture of a qualitative source. You're therefore going to get a closer / better result for HD playback, out of an HD res digital capture. Upscaling a digital capture is going to result in blocks. Making an HD CAPTURE initially, won't result in these blocks. Yes, it depends on the algorithm used, but if you capture at HD, then you no longer need to digitally up-scale. The end result will look closer to the original video footage on an HDTV.

If the theory behind what I've said is new to you, that's ok, don't worry. Try it in practise, and you'll see, I GUARANTEE you that an HD capture of a VHS source will give a better result when displayed on an HDTV.

Actually I thought the same way as you at one point in time. I was wrong (in theory and practice) .

A lossless 4:2:2 capture at 720x576 exceeds the theoretical and practical effective Y' and CbCr resolution from PAL VHS. You cannot gain more quality in an analog=>digital transfer.

If you've done this comparison , and are seeing more "blocks" in the SD capture when viewed on HDTV, this suggests you are not capturing in SD correctly.

You're either :

1) Using a poor upscaling algorithm to view SD material, or

2) (more likely) using insufficient or lossy compression for your SD capture - something like DV or MPEG2