My issue is I used the Roxio Easy VHS converter to transfer my VHS tapes to digital. Mpeg2 (654x480) is what QuickTime is telling me the format size is. I want to convert the file to an mp4 or mov file... My question is can I convert it to 640x480 without screwing up the ratio? Or do I need to start over and capture it in 640x480?
Thanks in advance!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 46
1. You shouldn't be using Roxio software for anything ever. You shouldn't be capping as MPG, especially if you intend to work on the video afterwards.
2. You should be capping at 720x480.
Having said that, it looks to me like you really did cap at 720x480 and when resized it's 654x480. You can check the MPG in MediaInfo to be sure. If you want to resize to 640x480 then crop a total of 16 columns of pixels from the sides, perhaps 8 and 8 from left and right. If you're lucky the black bars will total 16. That will leave you with 704x480 and that can properly be resized to 640x480, keeping the aspect ratio.
Thanks for the response. Do you have a suggestion for a good capture method? Elgato Video Capture or buying a Canopus ADVC-110?
Also below are the specs from the app your suggested.
As I suspected, it's 720x480, not 654x480. Also, the audio is crap and you should be capping WAV audio. I expect even Roxio has that ability. If for DVD, you can convert to AC3 audio later on.
If you plan on editing your captures, then it's usually recommended to cap as lossless AVI. I use Lagarith or sometimes HuffYUV. You would do that using either Virtual Dub or AmarecTV as the capturing program. A special free version of AmarecTV is required, one that doesn't need their proprietary codec. I don't have the link to that one.
- My sister Ann's brother
What would be a good means of capturing VHS?
Yeah I'm getting rid of the Roxio. Back to square one...
You've only mentioned Roxio Easy VHS converter. They include it with a lot of different capture devices. You're saying your hardware capture device is also made by Roxio?
If Roxio provided the software for a different brand capture device you can cap losslessly. My own USB capture device came with some garbage Roxio MPEG capture software but I easily was able to switch to capping losslessly.
Perhaps your method is better and much easier but you need to prove it. Is that asking to much?
The cheap dongles aren't a bad option for VHS so long as you avoid the few stinkers. For example, the Startech USB converter is quite decent.
And, as JVRaines mentioned, cheap doesn't necessarily equate with poor quality. Good USB capture devices can be had for $30-40.
And by the way Lordsmurf has a whole website dedicated to capture editing and restoration digitalfaq.com, He wrote several guides about VCR's, TBC's and capture devices.
Last edited by dellsam34; 27th Mar 2019 at 20:19.
I am late to the party? Really? People are still posting about VHS capture as opposed to reading old threads that might have miss information. Having said that someone confused you into thinking DV is a Mac proprietary codec. It is not. See what I mean about miss information of the past? Having said that DV is not an Apple proprietary codec either which is what I think you intended to say. The Mac is a computer Apple is a company. Having said that Apple is responsible for the Fire Wire port. DV and Fire Wire are not the same thing. DV-25, DV-50 and HDV are video formats while IEEE Fire Wire ports are connections that can be used for audio and video. Who cares if Fire Wire is an Apple product? Sony, Canon, Adobe, Avid etc all seemed to have adopted it. Why do you think that is? I am guessing they did so because it works. If it is good enough for Sony it should be good enough for most people shouldn't it? Having said that USB capture devices and DV converters have been around a long time and both can work for VHS capture. DV converter just work while USB capture cards can work but they are hit or miss and can be a pain in the butt at times.
Having said that ask lordsmurf what products he would use if he had to do a documentary for NASA using old 3/4" tapes and Betacam (not Betamax) tapes. Would he use his ATI AIW? What about RS 422 deck control? What about BNC and SDI connections? Would he use a Taranex? What would he use for broadcast compliant previews while editing? I have simply asked for a quick video demo of his equipment that he could do with a cellphone in two minutes and he has refused. Yet in other forms people will post images of their facilities. They will have 3/4" decks, Betacam decks and Intensity Shuttle, Canopus ADVC 3000, AJA io4K and a Taranex. I would simply like to see the guys awesome equipment. Is that to much to ask?
As far as capturing with an ATI AIW wonder back in 2003 I don't think the ATI AIW wonder gave you a real-time broadcast compliant preview using FCP, Avid or Premiere Pro. The DV converters did. You had a good idea of what to expect if you went to DVD or output to tape for broadcast using the DV converters. No one was up-scaling to HD for broadcast back then. In lordsmurf's own article he mentions the ATI AIW might get dropped frames if the computer is not powerful enough. You can capture video with a DV converter using a Pentium III. You know why? Because the hardware does all the work.
Lordsurf can complain until he is blue in the face (smurfs are always blue in the face : ) about the DV converter not working but there are many people that have used them without fail. Lordsmurf has not convinced me or anyone else to stop using the ADVC 110 and switch to an ATI AIW. I also don't think Lordsmurf has an ADVC 110. I think he has preconceived notion about the ADVC 110 which in incorrect. Having said that he could simply do a demo between the products because talk is cheap. If a picture is worth a thousand words then a video must worth a million.
But a lot of people now want to edit, restore and clean their precious videos, Neither DV nor MPEG-2 can allow for that without a significant loss of quality.
Last edited by dellsam34; 28th Mar 2019 at 11:33. Reason: added details
I just stated the DV converters do all the work in my prior post. You are simply repeating what I just posted.
I had an MPEG 2 PCI capture card with dedicated hardware but as of now some capture cards don't work as well as the capture card from the past. People want to know what works. DV converters work but I am not saying it is the best option.
Even though the Intensity Shuttle could get a good image using HI-8 I would still recommend the ADVC 110 over the Intensity Shuttle because DV-25 is not bad and it is just easier to use. You can clean up crappy shot VHS and HI-8 tapes when converted to DV-25 but you cannot expect miracles.
Having said that ask lordsmurf what products he would use if he had to do a documentary for NASA using old 3/4" tapes and Betacam (not Betamax) tapes. Would he use his ATI AIW?
I have simply asked for a quick video demo of his equipment that he could do with a cellphone in two minutes and he has refused.
In lordsmurf's own article he mentions the ATI AIW might get dropped frames if the computer is not powerful enough. You can capture video with a DV converter using a Pentium III. You know why? Because the hardware does all the work.
smurfs are always blue
Lordsmurf has not convinced me or anyone else to stop using the ADVC 110 and switch to an ATI AIW.
Again, I'm not completely anti-DV. I'm a pragmatist. If you can get a better card, do so. If you're stuck using DV, usually due to Mac-centric workflow, then you just need to understand what's happening. Because later editing/restoration can look even worse, if not paying attention to the colorspaces and filters. The 4:1:1 cannot afford to take another hit, whereas 4:2:2 could squeak by.
I also don't think Lordsmurf has an ADVC 110.
I suggest you leave me out of your tirades.
The lossy DV crowd has never developed a concept of clean video quality. They'll watch anything that moves, and the less knowledge and skill it takes to get a coherent piece of video out of typical analog sources, the more proud they are of their half-baked output. They're failures or bah-humbug's at lossless capture and have never handled a lossess video, so their "advice" is strictly off the wall and insupportable.
uh, Yep, I did some analog to DV capture. Tried 2 different DV cards, too. What crap that was. And what a total waste. Thank heaven I got my money back for those cards and saved the tapes. I never made that mistake again and never will.
But the DV crowd never learns. And they still think DV is something "new" from Canopus. Amazing.
You just go right out get yourself a Canopus setup, gloubu, or similar. Read the instructions, which should take you about 10 minutes because you won't have to learn anything about video properties, capture glitches, colorspaces, or anything else. No doubt you'll capture something and you'll see a moving image that even makes sounds if sounds are on the original source. Canopus or some other DV card will handle everything for you. It might even deinterlace, if you want to call it that, and you can even afford a BM to make some ugly transfers with oddball signal levels that they can't handle from analog source. The only thing that equipmenrt won't do is help clean up the compression artifacts, the inherent tape defects, the fried colors and blown-out highlights and other illegal level problems, and the lame etched-in-plastic look. The DV guys will be only too glad to help you with that, but most of them know very little about it and a lot of them don't even see it.
@gloubu, let us know how it turns out. I've already seen how this sort of thing goes, many, many times.
Last edited by LMotlow; 28th Mar 2019 at 23:12.- My sister Ann's brother
The last thing you want to do is apply compression to a noisy video format like VHS, The compression algorithm goes nuts in dark scenes. And the thing that you will never do is apply 4:1:1 color space to a video with 30 lines of color resolution like VHS especially if you are capturing it from composite and not S-Video.
[QUOTE=lordsmurf;2546634]Lack of VHS capturing knowledge?
MeI also don't think Lordsmurf has an ADVC 110.DAC-100, ADVC-100, ADVC-300, plus many more cards. Many, many, many more cards.
meHaving said that ask lordsmurf what products he would use if he had to do a documentary for NASA using old 3/4" tapes and Betacam (not Betamax) tapes. Would he use his ATI AIW?For that exact project, unlikely.
meIn lordsmurf's own article he mentions the ATI AIW might get dropped frames if the computer is not powerful enough. You can capture video with a DV converter using a Pentium III. You know why? Because the hardware does all the work.All capture cards can drop frames. That includes DV boxes.
meAIW wasn't an NLE card. It was for capture, period. Nor are all DV converters NLE cards.
meLordsmurf has not convinced me or anyone else to stop using the ADVC 110 and switch to an ATI AIW.I don't care what you do. If you want to throw away 50% of your color data, then go ahead. I just hope you don't subject others to such a miserable lossy capture. DV was never intended for conversion, it was intended purely as a shooting format. The lousy idea for capture seemingly came from Canopus, copied by Matrox (and quickly abandoned), same quick copy/abandon from some other brands. Uncompressed was always the intention for consumer analog formats. Lossless was the fix to RAID not needed. MPEG was an acceptable compromise in latter years. MJPEG, JPEG2000, ProRes422 and some others were a blend of lossy and lossless, differing in I/O, CPU, RAM use, etc. Different approaches.
youAgain, I'm not completely anti-DV. I'm a pragmatist. If you can get a better card, do so. If you're stuck using DV, usually due to Mac-centric workflow, then you just need to understand what's happening. Because later editing/restoration can look even worse, if not paying attention to the colorspaces and filters. The 4:1:1 cannot afford to take another hit, whereas 4:2:2 could squeak by.
My BMD Intensity Shuttle can produce better quality than the ADVC 110 using HI-8 tapes. If I had to capture HI-8 tapes of OJ Simpson for a Newscast the ADVC 110 would work just fine for that. If I needed to capture HI-8 tapes for an OJ Simpson documentary then I would opt for the best quality using the Intensity Shuttle. That is also kind of my point. Not all projects would require the best quality.
meI have simply asked for a quick video demo of his equipment that he could do with a cellphone in two minutes and he has refused.You're a troll, you want to argue. No matter what I'd do, you'd find something to gripe about. I decline to play your game. I'm not feeding the troll. I have more pressing tasks.
Use any device you want. Capture HI-8 with whatever device you prefer. Upscale the HI-8 to 1080P and post it. Post a 640 X 480 version as well. I want to see if the 640 X 480 version with people's hair looks like hair. It should. I then want to see if the 1080P version look like human hair or rabbit fur. If you retain all the details at a resolution of 1080P that you did at 640 X 480 I will be impressed.
I have stated several times Lordsurff's method might work very well. I am simply asking for a demonstration of his method? What is the problem? You can feel free to accept the challenge. Show us how awesome you method is. I want to learn form the best. That is all I have ever stated. If your method works we will all be enlightened and have you to thank. Having said that now you must either put up or shut up because talk is cheap!
I know what chroma sub-sampling is. My point is your TV signal is not an uncompressed signal at 4:4:4. Are you upset that your TV programs are not of the best quality available?
NO ONE IS SAYING DV-25 IS THE BEST VIDEO CODEC. Stop using a strawman argument.
The problem with this forum is that the anal folks need to accept not everyone is trying to restore a bad VHS tape or upscale VHS to 1080P (I would not do it myself). A lot of people who have HI-8 or VHS tapes with a decent white balance and decent lighting want a simple solution with decent quality. They know some of the video capture devices loose audio sync, have aspect ratio problems and even bad video quality. The DV converters can avoid all of that an are easy to use. I demonstrated the problem with using a cheap USB capture card. DV-25 is not the best video codec but if it is good enough for broadcast it should be good enough for most people. If someone stated I want the best quality possible because I want to upscale HI-8 to 1920X1080 then the DV converter might not be a good choice. Do you kind of see my point?
We're already aware that broadcasts are 4:2:2 -- not 4:4:4, not 4:1:1.
A lossless capture with a quality USB card is a simple quality solution for consumer analog formats -- assuming you also have the playback hardware, meaning known-quality camera/VCR + known-quality external TBC. Quality transfers can't just use random hardware.
DV converters are not magic boxes.
- You can setup software wrong, hence get wrong aspect ratio, etc.
- 4:1:1 is already arguably bad quality, losing 50%+ of the color data.
- DV boxes can lose sync, all capture cards can. (That "audio lock" is pure marketing that is nonsensical jabberwocky technobabble. "Audio lock" is indeed a jargon term, and existing in the realm of DV, but it means something completely different than what Canopus claims. I've written on this many times, and at least one VH post from the past 3 years extensively explained this, search for it, read it.)
Not mentioned is also how much of a PITA DV is in 2019, since Firewire is a legacy connection (that was never really popular, I might add). If you have to build a legacy system for video, then DV is not the best option. If you insist on using a modern computer, especially a laptop, DV is probably not an option at all. There are ways to add Firewire to some modern/recent desktops, but the driver/software half of the equation is sometimes still a PITA.
DV (MiniDV, DV25) is not, and has never been, used for broadcast. Yes, perhaps a low-budged infomercial or commercial used it, but who here is wanting "infomercial quality" on anything? And that's not really want I'd consider "broadcast", since those are paid spots. Broadcasters would probably run a test pattern for an hour, if paid handsomely for it.
Upscaling SD to HD is not the best quality. The deinterlace alone poses issues and challenges.