VideoHelp Forum

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Consider supporting us by disable your adblocker or Try ConvertXtoDVD and convert all your movies to DVD. Free trial ! :)
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Search PM
    Hello there,

    I am wondering if anybody has any thoughts on using DV (PAL) as an archiving format for VHS.

    With a data rate of around 13gb/hr and 4:2:0 profile, it seems up to the job. I've read on various forums however that is somewhat frowned upon? Uncompressed is not an option for me right now as I don't have a suitable capture card. I do have a DV camcorder though.

    I am looking to capture the footage, do a denoise (neat video), a tweak to the grade and then encode to H264.


    Anybody have any thoughts?

    t
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member DB83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    nothing wrong with Pal DV for capture/archiving.

    Done it for years using an ADVC. Methinks the 'bad press' comes from NTSC land. Maybe there are issues there but I do not see them over this side of the pond.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Search PM
    That's good to hear.

    Many thanks

    t
    Quote Quote  
  4. DV will give you slightly more noise (DCT ringing) and slightly less detail than uncompressed or losslessly compressed video.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Yes PAL and NTSC use different color sampling: 4:2:0 for PAL and 4:1:1 for NTSC. I have never seen anything definitive as to whether these differences would matter for VHS capture. You are correct that some people frown on using DV for VHS, but I have never seen any convincing side-by-side stills or videos that show degradation that you would notice while actually watching the video. Of course there are always differences between video formats and codecs, but I always judge the final product, while viewing the video at normal speed.

    For me, using DV (which I always do for VHS captures) is a no-brainer because it is so amazingly easy to edit; I can "smart render" when doing cuts-only edits (tougher, but not impossible, to do with long-GOP formats); and the lack of GOP format makes it easier in every respect.

    Anyone who suggests filling up your drives with uncompressed or lossless formats when you are capturing VHS is someone who has never had to capture hundreds of tapes and get through a project before this lifetime is finished. They also are missing the obvious point that you are starting with the proverbial "sow's ear" (i.e., something rough and ugly) and you are not going to make a "silk purse" out of it.
    Quote Quote  
  6. This post demonstrates added compression artifacts you can get from using DV on your way to MPEG-2 delivery. The source is PAL Video8.

    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/360804-DV-vs-lossless-capture-of-VHS?p=2395148&vie...=1#post2395148
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Search PM
    "But let's put it into perspective: we are looking through the magnifying glass at a single field we would normally see for 0.02 seconds."

    I know how they feel. I have about 70 hours of footage and quite frankly it's driven me mad at times. It started out as a "simple" H264 capture with a 20euro VHS machine from the fleamarket and an old Blackmagic Videorecorder USB stick I had lying around. Perfectly acceptable I thought. Then I started researching on the Internet

    Now I have 3 SVHS machines, 2 broadcast TBC's, Neat Video "denoiser" and a DV camcorder and have spent literally hours going back and forth between different machines and setups trying to find the "perfect" combinations. Zooming in 200% in After Effects and A/B'ing... over and over.

    Still, I think I've reached the point where I can finally put it to rest. I've got 70 hours captured as h264 and have gone back and just recaptured the 10 or so hours of "important" stuff as DV. In fairness it actually does look much better, especially with colour tweaking and noise reduction so it's been worth all the pain.

    I'll just put the tapes back in their boxes and store them anyway.... just in case



    t
    Last edited by Topsy; 2nd May 2017 at 14:24.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by Skiller View Post
    But let's put it into perspective: we are looking through the magnifying glass at a single field we would normally see for 0.02 seconds.
    But the DCT ringing occurs on every field and varies depending on where the edges are. So it dances around. You can easily see it when watching the video (m2v in that post) full screen -- especially around the edges of the buildings. Of course, the lossless to MPEG 2 video would show some DCT ringing too (from the MPEG encoding). Unfortunately, Skiller didn't provide a video sample of that for a direct comparison.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Of course, the lossless to MPEG 2 video would show some DCT ringing too (from the MPEG encoding). Unfortunately, Skiller didn't provide a video sample of that for a direct comparison.
    All of the videos should be available from earlier in the thread. His lossless -> MPEG-2 is 3 posts up.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by vaporeon800 View Post
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Of course, the lossless to MPEG 2 video would show some DCT ringing too (from the MPEG encoding). Unfortunately, Skiller didn't provide a video sample of that for a direct comparison.
    All of the videos should be available from earlier in the thread. His lossless -> MPEG-2 is 3 posts up.
    Thanks for that. I saw the lossless compressed video too, even earlier in the thread.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Originally Posted by vaporeon800 View Post
    This post demonstrates added compression artifacts you can get from using DV on your way to MPEG-2 delivery. The source is PAL Video8.

    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/360804-DV-vs-lossless-capture-of-VHS?p=2395148&vie...=1#post2395148
    Thanks for the link, although it is a bit circular in that I was the one doing many of the DV tests in the latter part of that thread, which is where we finally got to doing some testing of different captures. Also, my conclusion back then, while actually doing those comparisons, is the same I come to now: DV is perfectly fine for VHS captures and has so many other advantages, that it doesn't make sense to use something else unless, of course, you already have something else that works well.

    One of my main reasons for always coming back to DV capture for VHS is that, unlike many capture cards, DV is easy to set up and essentially bulletproof (as much as something like this can be). By contrast, scan a few dozen random thread in this forum (or elsewhere) about capture cards, and external capture boxes and you'll find lots of discussions about dropped frames, aspect ratio issues, and many other things.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Search PM
    I have been using a pre-owned Osprey 260e for some time and I must say it converts to uncompressed digital video as well as my ADVC110 ever did to DV. Plus it gives me a proc amp, audio level, audio prescaling, horizontal position, and picture height controls. Really nice PCIe card designed by people who obviously know analog video.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads