Advice on my home video archiving project...

[VSz]

Hi, i just need a little bit of advice really about my project.

I have about 100 vhs tapes of home videos bequeathed to me by my late grandfather.
I don't want to do anything wrong and have to start over as this is very time consuming work.

First piece of advice i need is software. The software my capture device came with isn't great (hauppauge v2) as it forces splitting at 3.99gb which is no good for me as i want all videos to be complete on a single dvd and not in parts, so what software is the best to go with overall?

I have tried roxio creator 9 and captured a vhs tape at 8mbps MPEG2 with it but the resulting file was around 7gb and i wasnt sure what the best to do with that file, i thought maybe using convertxtodvd, but i dont want to lose quality as when i did a test of a 80 minute vhs, after i converted it with convertxtodvd it came out blocky/pixelated on the faster movement scenes which isn't the case in the master MPEG2.

i have also tried Movavi Video Editor 12 but that only captures at around 1-2mbps as x264 progressive mkv with no options to change it which didnt seem so good.

Anyway, can anyone give me some pointers on best software/bitrates/methods on saving to dvd without losing quality/etc..

I'm sorry if this is hard to make sense of, its late.
Many thanks.

[SameSelf]

Anyway, can anyone give me some pointers on best software/bitrates/methods on saving to dvd without losing quality/etc.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but the reason the hauppauge software cuts your off at 3.99 GB is because that is the maximum capacity of a single layer DVD. So some quick advice.

Home/consumer camcorder video (assuming that is what your VHS tapes are) is noisy, handheld, poorly lit, poorly focused, and so on. Therefore, it does not compress nearly as well as the professional film that we are accustomed to seeing out of Hollywood or in your case the BBC. Therefore consumer video needs all the bitrate you can give it.

In addition to the 4 GB limit, DVDs also cap out at a 9 Mbps bitrate. This means you can only store about one hour of home video per DVD. So if your VHS tapes are two hours long, they will require a 4.5 Mbps bitrate to fit on a DVD, but your video quality will suffer.

I know that this is probably not what you want to hear—a 100 VHS tape collection ballooning to a 200+ DVD collection. But if quality is important, I don't really see any other options outside of dual layer DVD or potentially bluray.

I will let others comment on software.

[ezcapper]

Anyway, can anyone give me some pointers on best software/bitrates/methods on saving to dvd without losing quality/etc.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but the reason the hauppauge software cuts your off at 3.99 GB is because that is the maximum capacity of a single layer DVD. So some quick advice.

Home/consumer camcorder video (assuming that is what your VHS tapes are) is noisy, handheld, poorly lit, poorly focused, and so on. Therefore, it does not compress nearly as well as the professional film that we are accustomed to seeing out of Hollywood or in your case the BBC. Therefore consumer video needs all the bitrate you can give it.

In addition to the 4 GB limit, DVDs also cap out at a 9 Mbps bitrate. This means you can only store about one hour of home video per DVD. So if your VHS tapes are two hours long, they will require a 4.5 Mbps bitrate to fit on a DVD, but your video quality will suffer.

I know that this is probably not what you want to hear—a 100 VHS tape collection ballooning to a 200+ DVD collection. But if quality is important, I don't really see any other options outside of dual layer DVD or potentially bluray.

I will let others comment on software.

Yes please invest money to burn to either single or double layer blu-ray. You will have much better codec (h264) and higher bitrate (20 Mbps) meaning better quality. I also think the discs last longer. Virtualdub is good software with most analog capture cards. You might have to buy new capture card too

[VSz]

Thanks for the advice so far guys.

What format does VirtualDub capture in? and can you choose a bitrate etc...

I don't have a lot of money at the moment, so baring that in mind, what is the best i can hope to achieve?

My capture device is this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00XHOHRPW.
my VCR doesn't have the S-Video so i am using composite.
HDD space isn't an issue, i have more than plenty.
I have 100 blank Verbatim DVD-R.

So what method is best, and what is the best quality i can achieve with that?

[ezcapper]

this is example of how virtualdub is used. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvJxXvkNhzk .It lets you use any format you want. I would use huffyuv codec if you're harddrive is fast enough. Otherwise maybe mjpeg codec, your choice. You will have to download and install codec, which you can watch youtube video on how to use. Then maybe DVD-Styler can turn into dvd? I don't know what type of input files dvd-styler can take. It looks like mjpeg might work. I would personally use x264 codec lossless for the capture, because that is supported by everything, but not sure if your computer is fast enough for that, most modern ones are.

[VSz]

Thanks ezcapper i will give that a go, i havent had any issues with the speed of my machine capturing at 8mbps MPEG2, so hopefully x264 lossless will be ok also.
I've never used DVD-Styler, is it better than VSO ConvertXtoDVD ?

I've used VirtualDub and VirtualDubMod a few times, is the capture part roughly the same to use?
I'm not sure if i have huffyuv codec installed, or any lossless codecs for that matter, i will have to install them.

Thanks again for helping.

[jagabo]

You need to go back a step. For decent VHS capture you need a line time base corrector. You can spend hundreds of dollars on one of the few surviving S-VHS decks with a line TBC on ebay but a better option now is to get one of the old Panasonic DVD recorders (ES10, ES15, others) and use its line TBC in passthough mode (don't record on disc, just pass the composite or s-video signal through the DVD recorder). Those cost about $100 now. But you might be able to find one with a dead DVD drive (you don't need it) for less.

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/319420-Who-uses-a-DVD-recorder-as-a-line-TBC-and-wh...=1#post1983288

4 GB isn't the limit for single layer DVD, it's 4.3 GiB (4.7 GB). 4 GB is the limit for the FAT file system. So if you're capturing to a FAT formatted drive try capturing to an NTFS drive instead.

If you are thinking of cleaning up your videos you shouldn't capture with hardware or software MPEG 2 compression, or any other lossy codec. That will create artifacts and lose detail right off the bat. Capture with a fast lossless codec like huffyuv. The files will be much larger (typically about 30 GB/hr) but you will retain all the detail and not create artifacts. Save that as your archival masters. Edit and clean the video later.

[VSz]

Hi jagabo, strange you should suggest that, i do actually own a Panasonic DMR-EH50... would that do it?
How do i hook it all up? VCR->Panasonic->CaptureDevice->PC ?

I will look at recording using huffyuv, but im not sure 100x30GB/h would work out, i would need about 9TB of storage just for the masters. I know i said space wasnt an issue, but thats a little too much to store for me.

edit: So is the general consensus that i use VirtualDub to capture with?

[jagabo]

Hi jagabo, strange you should suggest that, i do actually own a Panasonic DMR-EH50... would that do it?

I'm not sure if that one has a line TBC. You can always test it out. See if vertical lines get much straighter and wiggle less. Turn off any noise reduction, sharpening, etc. filters in the DVD recorder. Noise reduction tends to be too strong and will eliminate some detail as well as noise, and will create some ghosting. Sharpening will increase noise and accentuate any oversharpening halos from the VHS deck. If your VHS deck gives you control over its sharpening -- turn it down.

How do i hook it all up? VCR->Panasonic->CaptureDevice->PC ?

Yes.

edit: So is the general consensus that i use VirtualDub to capture with?

A lot of people use VirtualDub because it's very flexible. But that also means you may have to fiddle with the settings to get it working correctly with your capture device.

[VSz]

After doing some reading it appear that only the ES series had the TBC capability with the ES10 having the strongest chip, so i guess it would make my EH50 useless then?
I will look into getting a used ES10 and see how it helps the quality (although my tapes are relatively clear and clean for early 1980s.

Thanks for taking the time to help me out like this.

*EDIT : I've managed to find an ES10 on ebay for £10 and purchased it, with remote all working

*EDIT 2 : When it comes to composite cables, does the cable quality/expense really make a difference? silver end, gold end.. ?

[jagabo]

When it comes to composite cables, does the cable quality/expense really make a difference? silver end, gold end.. ?

Cables can make a difference but there's little correlation with price.

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/221249-Test-Caps-various-composite-and-s-video-cables

Those caps are from a much higher quality source than VHS so they would show problems much more obviously. S-video has a definite advantage over composite. Look at the small Lucasfilm copyright text. All the composite caps show rainbowing. It's a little hard to see in still pictures but the all the composite caps also have dot crawl artifacts between the color bars, especially between yellow and cyan, and green and magenta. In video the dots are moving and more visible. Those problems appear when the chroma subcarrier isn't completely separated from the luma signal of composite video. Some capture cards are better than others at removing those problems. A 3d comb filter works better than a 2d comb filter for example. Using s-video from the deck to the capture device eliminates those problems because the luma and chroma are kept separate (they're separate on the tape). Beware though -- some cheap VHS decks have s-video outputs but don't work well. They use a cheap circuit to separate an internal composite signal to separate luma and chroma for the cable, delivering worse artifacts than a decent composite capture.

Another artifact that occurs with very bad cables is ghosting -- a negative echo to the right of the main image. Unfortunately, the chosen test pattern that makes hard to detect. It would have been better to have a dark grey background so the negative echos would be visible as a darker grey/black line to the right of the white lines. As it is, the background is already black it can't get any blacker.

Problems are uncommon with cables less than 15 feet or so.

Great deal on the ES10!

[FLP437]

I Do have a Panasonic DMR-EH65 and it does a good job as line tbc and also as full frame tbc as it completely prevents downstream capture devices from dropping frames

[VSz]

Problems are uncommon with cables less than 15 feet or so.

Well my composite is only around a meter long, and gold tipped i think. My VCR doesnt have s-video unfortunately.

I Do have a Panasonic DMR-EH65 and it does a good job as line tbc and also as full frame tbc as it completely prevents downstream capture devices from dropping frames

Is the EH65 like the EH50? which would i be better off using, the ES10 or the EH50 for passthrough?

[usually_quiet]

Is the EH65 like the EH50? which would i be better off using, the ES10 or the EH50 for passthrough?

You already have the EH50, so why not do a test capture on one tape with it and without it to see if it straightens out wavy vertical lines to your satisfaction?

The ES10 is supposed to be particularly good for correcting severe flagging/tearing, like that in the sample I linked to below, but if you don't see that kind of problem in any of your captures, one of the other models will probably be enough.
https://forum.videohelp.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14604&d=1352232607

[FLP437]

The EH-65 do have firewire input and hdmi output . The Panasonic will convert from analog to digital to analyze and improve the signal and again to analog if you do use an analog output , if you do use a digital output as hdmi you will have one less conversion which adds to better final quality.

Most of the Panasonics DVD-recorders act as line tbc and as full frame tbc´s as they do prevent dropping frames in the downstream capture devices, however it depends of the particular chipset and software implementation how good they are and there are some models better than others. However none of the Panasonics will allows you to copy Macrovison or HDCP (digital) protected sources. If using hdmi output it will reconstructs HDCP even for sources not HDCP protected so in this situation it´s necessary a splitter that do not pass along HDCP.

If you search in the forums you will find several people using the EH-50 as a TBC with apparently good results , however other models as the es-10 or 15 or the models with hdmi to avoid extra D/A conversions can eventually provide better results.

[VSz]

If you search in the forums you will find several people using the EH-50 as a TBC with apparently good results , however other models as the es-10 or 15 or the models with hdmi to avoid extra D/A conversions can eventually provide better results.

So now i have both, i'm better using the ES10 over my EH50 then?

[johnmeyer]

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but the reason the hauppauge software cuts your off at 3.99 GB is because that is the maximum capacity of a single layer DVD.

Actually, that probably isn't true. The maximum capacity of a single layer DVD is either 4.7 GB, 4.6 GB, 4.5 GB, or 4.37 GB depending on whether you measure in bytes, kilobytes, megabytes or gigabytes. The 3.99 GB has nothing to do with any of those numbers and instead is the old FAT32 files size limit. The Hauppauge software is probably set to default to that file size, in order to be compatible with the widest range of storage devices (most thumb drives, out of the box, are still formatted with FAT32).

Take a look and see if you can change that 3.99 GB default. Even if you can't, it really doesn't matter because any NLE that you use to edit the videos (I assume you'll do a little editing before archiving in order to delete dead spots) will join the pieces seemlessly.

Home/consumer camcorder video (assuming that is what your VHS tapes are) is noisy, handheld, poorly lit, poorly focused, and so on. Therefore, it does not compress nearly as well as the professional film that we are accustomed to seeing out of Hollywood or in your case the BBC. Therefore consumer video needs all the bitrate you can give it.

In addition, Hollywood films are 24 fps progressive instead of 30 fps interlaced (a.k.a. 60i). Having 2.5x the number of events per second requires more bits to achieve the same spatial quality as those Hollywood movies, although the relationship is far from being linear (i.e., it doesn't require 2.5x the number of bits per second).

However, you can still get by with a pretty low bitrate because the resolution of VHS is so low. This is true no matter what resolution you use for capture. I recommend doing everything at 720x480 resolution. There is zero benefit to capturing using HD settings.

In addition to the 4 GB limit, DVDs also cap out at a 9 Mbps bitrate. This means you can only store about one hour of home video per DVD. So if your VHS tapes are two hours long, they will require a 4.5 Mbps bitrate to fit on a DVD, but your video quality will suffer.

It is true that the maximum amount of video you can store on a single-layer DVD when using the maximum bitrate allowed by the DVD spec is about seventy minutes. It is also true that if you use a professional encoder that supports two-pass encoding, you'll be able to get much more than that on each DVD. Since single-layer DVDs are much more stable and more compatible with a wider range of players, I'd stick with those. I've seen lots of aging tests and if you use quality Verbatim or Taiyo-Yuden (now JVC) discs, they should last much longer than you will.

You should do some tests before you start your project. Try taking one of your captures and the encode it, using 2-pass MPEG-2 encoding, at 8,000,000 bps, 6,000,000 bps, 4,000,000 bps, and 2,000,000 bps. I wouldn't go much lower than that. I've done this test many times, and with my MPEG-2 encoder (based on code from MainConcept), I generally cannot see any significant difference between the first two, and even the 4,000,000 bps encodes usually look pretty good. Of course if your video contains a lot of really fast motion, like a football game or car race, you probably want to use bitrates on the higher end of that range.

One thing that can make a lot of difference, if you want to use a lower bitrate in order to minimize the number of DVDs, is to do some simple noise reduction on the video before encoding for the DVD. There are hundreds of threads about this in this forum.

Bottom line: you have to do your own tests because your equipment, software, and video quality will all determine how low a bitrate you can use. It's also a little like wine: some people can't taste the difference between "Two Buck Chuck" and Silver Oak.

[jagabo]

Also, the use of a line TBC greatly reduces the bitrate requirement because all those wiggling edges without one suck up bitrate.

[VSz]

Ok, thanks guys.

I think the plan is to do passthrough on the ES10 and use VirtualDub to capture, but what would be my best option of codec? I'm thinking either huffyuv or x264.
I want to be able to clean up and edit afterwards, so which do you recommend i use?

I'm really looking forward to getting started on this now... just gotta wait for the ES10 to arrive

[SameSelf]

the huffman based codec hasn't been maintained or updated for like more than a decade. I would go with utvideo and be done with it. x264 is not an intermediate codec. It's a delivery codec and shouldn't be used for capture especially if you plan on doing post-edits. Also, be aware that vdub has some nasty audio sync issues—or so I have been told as I have never used it to capture. Thus some recommend using AmarecTV which reportedly doesn't experience the same audio sync issues, but the GUI's poor translation could be an impediment.

[VSz]

Thanks for the suggestions SameSelf, i will definitely take a look at AmarecTV.
If VirtualDub has sync issues, i dont want to be using that for 100 VHS as i hate having to mess around getting the audio to sync correctly and that would be a huge added workload.

Also i will have a look at utvideo, is it useable through AmarecTV?


If anyone else has any software/codec suggestions let me know as i only want to have to do this once.

[jagabo]

VirtualDub doesn't have sync issues once it's set up properly for your capture device. UT Video is another lossless codec like huffyuv. It compresses a little more than huffyuv but requires more CPU power. That's why I recommended huffyuv instead. Less CPU usage leads to a lower probabability of dropped frames. But if your CPU is powerful enough either should work.

Be careful with x264vfw. If you use it you want to use the ultrafast preset. I'd also set --keyint 1 as VHS caps will not benefit from P or B frames in lossless mode and processing will be faster. You will also have to specify interlaced mode with --tff or --bff, whichever is appropriate for your capture device. I'm not even sure you that will work properly since x264 or the capture program will have to convert incoming YUV 4:2:2 to 4:2:0 -- that may not be done correctly.

[VSz]

The only reason i was thinking x264 is for the lower filesize, i wont have enough storage to store huffyuv's 30+GB/h, which on average would make each video tape around 60-90GB, it would go into like 8+TB just for the masters alone. Saying that though, i certainly dont want dropped frames etc...

Life would be so much easier if i wasnt so picky about video quality

[jagabo]

x264 lossless will not give you smaller files than UT. UT and x264 will give you about 20 percent smaller than huffyuv. If you need to go smaller than that you need to use lossy x264 or other lossy codecs -- ProRes, Grass Valley, MJPEG, DV, etc.

[SameSelf]

The only reason i was thinking x264 is for the lower filesize, i wont have enough storage to store huffyuv's 30+GB/h, which on average would make each video tape around 60-90GB, it would go into like 8+TB just for the masters alone. Saying that though, i certainly dont want dropped frames etc...

Life would be so much easier if i wasnt so picky about video quality

I agree—8+ TB of masters is more than ridiculous. That is one of the knocks against capturing to a lossless format. I use DV-AVI for masters, and many others do as well. It averages about 13 GB/hr which is not too heavy on compression but much more manageable.

If you capture to a lossless format, think of that as an intermediate format. You can easily transcode that to a DV-AVI master for archiving. This gives you the added flexibility of specifying exactly which resizing algo to use when you go from 422 to 411. And as soon as you are done editing on the lossless file, nuke it. Don't save it.

Also, being picky about video quality is a little bit of a pipe dream when it comes to VHS. At no point was VHS ever known for its quality. Why do you think HD was invented and now 4K? Back in VHS's heyday, nobody had 60" UHDTVs, so nobody knew any better. Eventually, the generations who have no experience with VHS will just consider it a bygone era that has a certain aesthetic similar to how we experience silent or B&W films.

[VSz]

If you capture to a lossless format, think of that as an intermediate format. You can easily transcode that to a DV-AVI master for archiving.

So is it always better to capture to a lossless like huffyuv first then to DV-AVI, rather than just capture direct to DV-AVI?

and what do you mean by 'when you go from 422 to 411' ?

EDIT : Also, which DV-AVI codec would i need as it looks like there is a few to choose from.

[jagabo]

So is it always better to capture to a lossless like huffyuv first then to DV-AVI, rather than just capture direct to DV-AVI?

Not necessarily. But as chroma needs to be converted from interlaced 4:2:2 in your capture, to interlaced 4:2:0 for PAL DV, or interlaced 4:1:1 for NTSC DV, converting yourself gives you the choice of algorithms. But with the low color resolution of VHS it doesn't make much difference -- unless the automated conversion during capture is screwed up.

and what do you mean by 'when you go from 422 to 411' ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/57460/chroma-subsampling
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/294144-Viewing-tests-and-sample-files?p=1792760&vie...=1#post1792760

which DV-AVI codec would i need as it looks like there is a few to choose from.

Cedocida.

[VSz]

But with the low color resolution of VHS it doesn't make much difference.

So in your opinion, would i be better going huffyuv->DV or just capturing direct to DV via something like STOIK Video Capture?

[jagabo]

If you're going to use DV you might as well do it while you capture. Unless some kind of problem turns up when doing so.

[SameSelf]

If you capture to a lossless format, think of that as an intermediate format. You can easily transcode that to a DV-AVI master for archiving.

So is it always better to capture to a lossless like huffyuv first then to DV-AVI, rather than just capture direct to DV-AVI?

and what do you mean by 'when you go from 422 to 411' ?

EDIT : Also, which DV-AVI codec would i need as it looks like there is a few to choose from.

If you plan on doing advanced post processing, e.g. color correction, then yes, you will be much better off capturing to a 422 format vs 411. Otherwise, if you are only doing lite editing, then DV-AVI would probably be better. Because there is nothing to be gained from a lossless capture if all you plan to do is transcode to DV-AVI. But post production requires time, experience, and to do it right, sophisticated software and hardware. You have 100 VHS tapes and if I had that sort of project in front of me, I would forget any advanced post production because that would take months and months of work.