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 23 of 23
Thread
  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC5Zr3NC2PY

    What do you guys think? The result does look better. Time to ditch your old capture devices and windows xp machines?
    Quote Quote  
  2. It's an easy way to get mediocre results. He's comparing to his previous method of using a DVD recorder. Most what he's showing is the difference in black levels. (I don't know if he did any additional levels changes after capture but the black levels in the HD capture are too low in the Youtube video.) Also OK deinterlacing to 60p, and avoidance of Macrovision. There's no doubt one can do better with traditional capturing, filtering, and encoding. But that takes a lot more skill and work.
    Last edited by jagabo; 6th Jul 2019 at 20:11.
    Quote Quote  
  3. mr. Eric-jan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Netherlands
    Search Comp PM
    There's a new version of this device which also has composite and component vide inputs. (AGPTEK website)
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I've watched some of the Youtuber's other videos and he's speaking to the layman, generalizing techniques and facts, sometimes getting them outright wrong. I'd place this video into that category.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Paris Ca, 92345 Mexico
    Search PM
    A mediocre capture with pumped up contrast and chroma.

    First, capturing VHS tapes from composite is the first wrong step, composite was the cheapest way to watch tapes using low cost VCR's and TV's back in the day, but when it comes to capturing you should not use the same equipment and the same mentality, A S-VHS VCR with S-Video output is a must, Line TBC VCR and/or an external full frame TBC are recommended. Video is recorded in two component onto tape chroma and luma, They should be captured as they are from S-Video output (and combined later during the conversion to digital to lossless AVI 4:2:2 chroma subsampling). Using composite you are capturing the analog combined version of the two components which is inferior compared to the source signal recorded on tape.

    Second, not everyone can afford Adobe Premiere Pro.

    Third, Combining video files, changing aspect ratio should be done in a lossless way, as a matter fact you should not be doing this at all if you have the right hardware and software.

    Fourth, You should always capture lossless AVI 4:2:2 and convert later using a more efficient conversion method not Premiere Pro.

    He has some knowledge about how stuff work but he needs to learn a lot about video capturing.
    Last edited by dellsam34; 7th Jul 2019 at 22:24.
    Quote Quote  
  6. VHS is a low bandwidth video, I don't think capturing through S-video improves picture quality. Kinda like Laserdisc is composite video, it's a myth that S-video out improves picture quality.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Paris Ca, 92345 Mexico
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by digicube View Post
    VHS is a low bandwidth video, I don't think capturing through S-video improves picture quality. Kinda like Laserdisc is composite video, it's a myth that S-video out improves picture quality.
    It's not a myth I see the difference with my own eyes.
    Laser disc is composite in nature and should be captured as such there is nothing you can do about it, not VHS. VHS despite its lower quality should be captured in Y/C period. If the color info is bad to begin with why make it worse. It's the same analogy when some say VHS is mediocre so capturing lossy is not going to make it worse. Compression algorithms go nuts when fed with noisy low quality video, for best results first make sure the playback hardware is decent enough to produce a clean stable video, Capture clean lossless AVI 4:2:2 and encode from it not from a noisy analog composite signal.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Dinosaur Supervisor KarMa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    US
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by digicube View Post
    VHS is a low bandwidth video, I don't think capturing through S-video improves picture quality. Kinda like Laserdisc is composite video, it's a myth that S-video out improves picture quality.
    VHS stores the Luma and Chroma separate to begin with. Capturing it via composite is not capturing how it was stored, but instead you are capturing a separated Y/C signal that has been combined into Composite which then has to be separated again via a Combfilter to get back the Y/C. There was a homebrew NASA project I saw someone posting around here months ago about NASA creating their own U-Matic with S-Video output because U-Matic also stores the video the same as VHS (Color Under), but U-Matic only ever outputted Composite when they were made in the 70s. They had some nice stats on the video signal gains they had with S-Video vs Composite and preserving NASA U-Matic footage. As far as Laserdisc, that was actually stored as composite so S-Video would not really help that.

    The gains are small with S-Video VHS but they are there by keeping the Y and C separate.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    My response is here: New discovery in video capture field?

    And I responded on the Youtube channel as well:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC5Zr3NC2PY&lc=Ugw5BP4pG9Ux_J9VcK14AaABAg

    In short, he's misinformed, gets many facts wrong, and the method is craptastic.
    Last edited by lordsmurf; 8th Jul 2019 at 18:56.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    The usual clueless newbie crap. Nothing new here.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    There is something to be said for nostalgia and "Seeing things the way we remember them."

    I've been battling with myself for the past few days whether I should pick up that 20" Sony CRT I see on Craigslist just to play my Atari 2600 games on. Something about being able to see those scanlines again (I'm currently using a 15" 4:3 LCD) is so tempting. *SIGH*
    Quote Quote  
  12. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    VHS tapes never had deinterlacing artifacts on CRTs. That guy is deluding himself.

    It only had crazy pumped levels if you jacked up the color levels on the TV -- which you can still do with HDTVs.

    CRTs made it somewhat fuzzy, slightly deepened the blacks ... and that's about it.

    If anything, many CRT/SDTV sets had better speakers than modern HDTVs. And Youtube is tiny compared to what we considered a "small set" (13") back then. So it can be argued that video has gotten worse, not better.
    Quote Quote  
  13. We did it! lol The guy made a follow up video to correct his mistakes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQioCb4KUHM
    Quote Quote  
  14. This is just another option - probably somewhere on a par with those DVD Recorder/VHS player combos that were around 10 - 15 years ago. If it means that more family VHS videos aren't lost forever then . . .
    Quote Quote  
  15. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by digicube View Post
    We did it! lol The guy made a follow up video to correct his mistakes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQioCb4KUHM
    Even then, he was dismissive as usual. The claim of "0.5%" was nonsense. You probably could quantify the loss, between lack of TBC, deinterlace, crushing contrast, and some other aspects, and it'd still be a 50%+ loss minimum. It's just not a good method, no matter how much he wants to defend his purchase.

    Commenters that claimed random numbers (5%), or called the issues "imperfections", were also equally clueless. Most layman can readily see the flaws and faults in the video, meaning it's not just nitpick territory.
    Quote Quote  
  16. I understand that some people just want something easy. They don't want to spend money and time on equipment and learning how to properly deal with video. For them this might be an acceptable method of capturing old VHS tapes and laserdiscs. But they should be aware of the problems: crushed blacks, blown out brights, loss of detail, mediocre deinterlacing, macroblock and DCT ringing artifacts, wrong aspect ratio, etc. Some of these are caused by the particular devices he's using, some are common to all such devices. Some can be fixed in post, some cannot.

    Maybe the over-contrasted picture looks like he remembers his old maladjusted CRT TV (most people had them set up like that, not calibrated) but it's wrong and you can easily get that look with simple tweaks of a capture device's proc amp (not with his previous "best method", a DVD recorder) or in any NLE.

    My problem with they guy is calling it the "best easy way". I'll grant it's easy but it's not best in any way.
    Last edited by jagabo; 13th Jul 2019 at 19:21.
    Quote Quote  
  17. mr. Eric-jan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Netherlands
    Search Comp PM
    It also depends on each piece of equipment and software used..... there is so much difference in that, only a certain level of quality is possible, and all are not the same.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Yeah, you're probably right. There probably are some combinations of converters and capture devices that will generally give better results than others. The main problem that I see is that there appears to be very little flexibility with this method, and I'm sure we've all seen HUGE variations in most aspects from one VHS video to the next. Although the . . . er . . . more traditional methods of video capture and restoration involve a lot more work and time and experimentation (well, they do when I dabble!) at least you can adapt your processes accordingly for each project.

    As I said earlier, I think this method should be seen as just another option that may be of use for some people in some situations. And I'll go along with Jagabo that this guy is almost certainly over-selling this method by calling it the "best easy way", but I guess that's how you get clicks and ad revenue these days. And anyway, it's probably no worse than those "convert your home videos at home" type of gadgets that always used to be in those little gift catalogues that came free with (seemingly) every magazine or newspaper.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Thanks for reminding me why I stopped coming here.
    Quote Quote  
  20. mr. Eric-jan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Netherlands
    Search Comp PM
    It's nice to get good advice from people with lots of experience, and also nice to get easy to do tips, but a lot of people will not have the right equipment, software, or a good pc, most of the time it is finding a balance of that and what satisfies the end user, perfection is not always needed or possible.
    And yes, there will be also people who are trying to sell you something because they get better of it, like on these Youtube-mercials, you should have some common sense with that, and do more research, if it sounds too good ... most of the time it isn't.
    Last edited by Eric-jan; 15th Jul 2019 at 16:40.
    Quote Quote  
  21. mr. Eric-jan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Netherlands
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by TimA-C View Post
    Yeah, you're probably right. There probably are some combinations of converters and capture devices that will generally give better results than others. The main problem that I see is that there appears to be very little flexibility with this method, and I'm sure we've all seen HUGE variations in most aspects from one VHS video to the next. Although the . . . er . . . more traditional methods of video capture and restoration involve a lot more work and time and experimentation (well, they do when I dabble!) at least you can adapt your processes accordingly for each project.
    Yes, although "this guy" thinks it's a nice device in that YT video, there's still some work to do like aspect ratio and stitch the splitted files, which is odd if it's such a "great device"
    Quote Quote  
  22. Originally Posted by ozymango View Post
    Thanks for reminding me why I stopped coming here.
    Er . . . do we really have to point out the stoopidity of your post? On the plus side, I'd thought that the general level of discourse had improved here . . . now I know why.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by TimA-C View Post
    more traditional methods of video capture and restoration involve a lot more work and time and experimentation
    Not really. The main issue is just acquiring the right pieces. That means reading, not shooting from the hip, buying the cheapest item from Amazon, and being a gullible consumer that believes the product marketing.

    And I'll go along with Jagabo that this guy is almost certainly over-selling this method
    Most of his videos are like that. He had very minimal knowledge, yet likes to pretends he's an interwebs expert.

    it's probably no worse than those "convert your home videos at home" type of gadgets that always used to be in those little gift catalogues that came free with (seemingly) every magazine or newspaper.
    "No worse" undercuts just how dreadful those items were, how much they butchered the video. And why many failed in the market, and disappeared.

    For years now, my work has been trying to restore what low-quality devices and methods botched. Or outright redoing the transfers, when the source tapes weren't trashed. I've seen far too many people regret how badly they transferred their videos, and are now trying to do it better.

    Originally Posted by Eric-jan View Post
    And yes, there will be also people who are trying to sell you something ... like on these Youtube-mercials.
    Yep, we live in an era of fake advice in the 2010s.

    Originally Posted by Eric-jan View Post
    also nice to get easy to do tips, but a lot of people will not have the right equipment, software, or a good pc,
    And yet, none of his video addresses that.

    It was quite literally "yay, look what I found on Amazon, you should buy one too!"

    But if he wants to truly do a "best" and "easy" conversion job, it requires some research and reading. Not lazy, not a know-it-all attitude. You can't get through life with pulled-from-ass unqualified guessing, which is entirely what that video was. The knowledge he wants is out there (an easy quality method to transfer video), but it takes effort. Everything takes research/effort. I genuinely wonder if this guy has any sort of college education, as college is where they teach you how to research and vet sources. This dude just mind vomits, and mixes up tons of concepts. It's quite clear that he has no experience in these areas, and just skims articles online. Meaning a "Google/Wikipedia degree", and a half-ass one at that.

    If you want to cram through video that looks worse than the source, then we've had abundant methods since the 90s/00s and into the 10s by which to do it. EZcap, a ratty VCR, and done. If you want to edit, use any NLE -- and the cheaper, the better, meaning no Premiere. I don't know what rock he's been hiding under. But if you want a "best" method, that's not it.

    I'm generally not the blunt/aggressive on topics, but it's obnoxious when myths and misinformation get spouted.
    Last edited by lordsmurf; 16th Jul 2019 at 06:08.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads