VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4
FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 91
Thread
  1. mr. Eric-jan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Netherlands
    Search Comp PM
    My advise is more out of a lazy point of view, the tools mostly mentioned on this forum, are used if one knows a lot of technical details and any wrong input will also be accepted,
    the only thing is when it goes wrong one should know where it did go wrong, and not undoing the good stuff, so my plan of "attack" is to use software with lots of presets, and only slightly change certain values, which are easy to correct, when this fails.
    Also some consumer vcr's have sometimes features, which have great value, but are rare, also old cheap china dvd recorders have usefull options which help with capture, component (YUV) is one of my favourites, which came only very late into play in pro video equipment, the old china video devices where mostly non A-class devices though.
    Last edited by Eric-jan; 21st Jun 2020 at 09:12.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Eric-jan View Post
    aspect 4:3 is the actual image visible on a CRT 720x540 digital, 5:4 = 720x576 digital
    What are you talking about? 4:3 PAL is 768x576.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Originally Posted by Pinto007 View Post
    Originally Posted by Eric-jan View Post
    aspect 4:3 is the actual image visible on a CRT 720x540 digital, 5:4 = 720x576 digital
    What are you talking about? 4:3 PAL is 768x576.
    720:540=768:576=4:3=1.333:1
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by manono View Post
    720:540=768:576=4:3=1.333:1

    I wrote clearly: 4:3 PAL is 768x576, not 720x540.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    There is no such 768x576 or 720x540, They can however be the chosen conversion resolution if someone wants to use square pixel rather than PAR pixels. The official capture resolution for PAL is 720x576 by standard and every capture card uses it by design. However out of 720 only 704 is used for active video according to D1 standard (one of the first digital video formats) defined by ITU-R 601 (orig. CCIR-601) for NTSC, but PAL conforms to the same rule for horizontal resolution. The standard added 16 black pixels (8 on each side) after figuring out that analog VTR's have different horizontal positions of the active video frame (not always in the center of the frame) to avoid cutting off some of the active video area.

    But nowadays with digital files and flat screens that show the entire digital frame, there is no need to use 720, Vdub for example can crop to 704 in any horizontal position to keep only the active video area and with the magic of the aspect ratio flag you can set the PAR to sar=12/11 and any video player can display the frame 704x576 in a perfect 4:3 aspect ratio with no deformation. You can set 720x576 to display in 4:3 but the presence of 16 grayich pixels squeezes the frame horizontally, by how much? you guessed it, by exactly 16 pixels.

    After cropping the useless black bars one can convert the 704x576 to any legal resolution as long as the resulting frame is 4:3, However a lot of members here advice against resolution conversion due to the artifacts that result from it unless it's absolutely necessary.
    Last edited by dellsam34; 21st Jun 2020 at 18:55.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member DB83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Simple maths time:


    704 / 11 * 12 = 768 / 4 * 3 = 576
    Quote Quote  
  7. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    Yes, You can convert from 704x576 non square pixel to 768x576 square pixel after capturing but there is no gain other than compatibility with non square pixel devices which I've never encountered one so far, All the software and devices I've used recognize the aspect ratio flag and reshape the pixels accordingly.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by Pinto007 View Post
    Originally Posted by manono View Post
    720:540=768:576=4:3=1.333:1

    I wrote clearly: 4:3 PAL is 768x576, not 720x540.
    Apparently you understand nothing. How will that 4:3 DAR PAL DVD at 720x576 be displayed on a 1080p LCD television? At 1440x1080 with black bars added to the sides to bring it up to 1920x1080.

    The point is that 4:3 DAR PAL DVD will be resized to some 1.33:1 ratio resolution when played, or when reencoded to square pixels. There's nothing magical about 768x576. You could make it 512x384, 640x480, 720x540, 768x576, 960x720, 1440x1080, etc. Stop wasting everyone's time.

    Originally Posted by Pinto007 View Post
    I wrote clearly: 4:3 PAL is 768x576, not 720x540.
    So, no. That's only one of many many possible square pixel resolution resizes.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    I've never heard of 720x540 as a legal SDTV resolution, The SDTV documented legal resolutions are:

    Image Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Untitled.jpg
Views:	614
Size:	119.5 KB
ID:	53903  

    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    I've never heard of 720x540 as a legal SDTV resolution
    Was Pinto007 referring to SDTV resolutions? In this day and age? I just figured that after capping "uncompressed" Nands67 would reencode and resize for archiving, given that "uncompressed" is pretty big.
    Originally Posted by Pinto007 View Post
    What are you talking about? 4:3 PAL is 768x576.
    And I was suggesting that he (either Pinto007 or Nands67) can resize to any 1.33:1 ratio resolution he wishes.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    My preference is to capture full frame PAL 720x576 uncompressed

    Then cut the bad or unwanted frames lossless VDub direct stream copy to a new file as my archive.

    Then delete the original capture.

    Then you can do whatever, crop, add border, resize, filter, encode keeping the original archive file.

    For me the file size doesn’t matter, just back it up on an external HDD and it is there if you want to use it again.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    Another thing to add is be prepared to clean your vcr heads, old tapes can clog them up quickly.

    Some times minor manual tracking adjustments in/out capstan can help improve the signal but this is only for those who are vcr tech savy.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by manono View Post
    There's nothing magical about 768x576. You could make it 512x384, 640x480, 720x540, 768x576, 960x720, 1440x1080, etc. Stop wasting everyone's time.
    (...)
    So, no. That's only one of many many possible square pixel resolution resizes.
    (...)
    And I was suggesting that he (either Pinto007 or Nands67) can resize to any 1.33:1 ratio resolution he wishes.
    Stop mislead people - wa are talking about STANDARD SD PAL resolutions, not about your fairy tales. It is not a magic - it is PAL standard.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Nands67 View Post
    My preference is to capture full frame PAL 720x576 uncompressed
    What they call full frame is digital sources like DV, D8...etc Captured analog video full frame is 704x576 not 720x576. Cropping is recommended right after capturing before doing anything to the video, I believe Vdub lets you crop and cut scenes losslessly at the same time but not sure, I'll have to try it.

    Another crop has to be done for NTSC sources along with the horizontal crop with pro capture cards and devices which capture at 486 vertical resolution, The 6 lines have to be gone to get 480 and that removes most of the head switch that otherwise couldn't be possible to get rid of using consumer capture cards or on PAL tapes.
    Last edited by dellsam34; 22nd Jun 2020 at 16:24.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by Pinto007 View Post
    Stop mislead people - wa are talking about STANDARD SD PAL resolutions, not about your fairy tales. It is not a magic - it is PAL standard.
    Nonsense. This thread is about capturing PAL VHS tapes and 720x576 is the PAL standard. Why are you trying to hijack this thread to take it somewhere else? Later, if resizing (which, apparently, Nands67 isn't interested in), there are many resolutions from which to choose, with none being the required or 'standard' one.

    For example, if the plan is to upload to YouTube, 768x576 is useless as YouTube will downscale it to 640x480.
    Last edited by manono; 23rd Jun 2020 at 01:43.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    Sorry! Have yet to work out reply with quotes.

    My capture frame is 720 x 576, I can see the pixel count in GIMP, handy program to look at pixels.

    There is black bars left and right so I guess the actual visible video is smaller, possibly the 704x576 as dellsam34 mentioned.

    Yes there is the video head switching pixels displayed at the bottom which Eric-Jan described as dirt.

    So i guess you have several choices, by the way, cropping & trimming or cutting are different terminology and I have seen it used incorrectly here.

    You could leave as is but it will probably mess with filters.

    Crop out will effect the frame size & aspect ratio slightly but would help filters.

    Can add borders after filters to get back to the correct frame size for SD.

    Probably getting off topic now, my uncompressed capture is 720x576 yuv 4:2:2, now can experiment.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member DB83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    The topic has gone somewhat off-track especially about the comments of 720*540. And whilst that may be a valid 4:3 ratio it is still a risky ratio if you are initially dealing with interlaced sources and captures.


    Now I will always respect any user in his chosen capture format even if it is overkill. And YUV 'uncompressed' is still overkill. I would ask the OP to look at lossless capture beit lagarith, huffyuv or anor. Visual quality is as good as that 'uncompressed' and file sizes could be 50% smaller (30 - 60 gb per hour). And that in-itself will be easier on resources in vdub.


    On another point, I do not do much VHS captures these days but I did one a month or so ago for another forum. Now I did resize on the vertical whilst leaving the horizontal at 704 (but then I do appreciate the pitfalls and provide for it). But what surprised me that with no cropping (AFAIK) I do not get any lower-frame head noise. Whether that is down to the capture device or the filtering of the source through an ADVC prior to capture I know not. Sorry I can not provide a sample of that due to its 'educational' content
    Quote Quote  
  18. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by DB83 View Post
    That info may be revealed to you in the capture program when you select the device or might be revealed under windows hardware.
    For USB cards, rarely. Those are hidden behind bridges like eMPIA. All Windows reveals is the bridge name. To see the chips, you must crack the cards open. Or just listen to those of us that have already cracked the cards open, and tell you what to buy (aka, the easy button).

    Originally Posted by Pinto007 View Post
    I wrote clearly: 4:3 PAL is 768x576, not 720x540.
    No.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post
    Originally Posted by Pinto007 View Post
    I wrote clearly: 4:3 PAL is 768x576, not 720x540.
    No.
    After STRETCHING.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Originally Posted by Nands67 View Post
    Yes there is the video head switching pixels displayed at the bottom which Eric-Jan described as dirt.

    So i guess you have several choices, by the way, cropping & trimming or cutting are different terminology and I have seen it used incorrectly here.
    To avoid cropping the headswitching noise away, jagabo developed a pretty good filter for it which leaves the little bit of 'good' video below it alone and fills in the noise itself with portions from above and below it. You need to know just where it begins and how thick it is:

    function InterpolateScanLines(clip src, int first, int lines)
    {
    top=Crop(src,0,first-1,src.width,1)
    bot=Crop(src,0,first+lines,src.width,1)
    StackVertical(top,bot)
    BilinearResize(src.width,lines+2)
    Crop(0,1,-0,-1)
    Overlay(src, last, 0, first, opacity=1.0) # change opacity to suit
    }


    and it's used like this:

    ConvertToYUY2(interlaced=true)
    SeparateFields()
    InterpolateScanLines(last, first line,line thickness)
    Weave()


    I often add a blur to the former headswitching noise afterwards.

    And, like DB83, I've wondered about your use of 'uncompressed'. Like him I'd highly recommend lossless capture. I use Lagarith.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by DB83 View Post
    Now I guess that the original easycaps were reasonable units. But the Chinese 'borrowed' the name and manufactured their own with poorer chipsets and poor driver support. And these poorer units found their way in to a multitude of devices with other names Roxio being one. And Roxio, I understand, took the p*ss by using their name to rebrand it at a higher price. So you effectively get the same item, maybe with better software etc. whether you paid $10 or $40.
    The original easycap firm finally got fed up and rebranded/improved their own units under the Ezcap name with the Ezcap116 being the equivalent of their final easycap offering.
    The "legit" Easycap/EZcap was also a POS.

    I no longer remember the details, as it's been years, but it was something like this: UK person rebadged Chinese cards, marked up price, resold. (Or maybe designed using cheap chips, and then fabbed in China? Then Chinese stole basic designs?) Then Chinese started to borrow name for "knockoffs" (using same chips, then used other chips). The main reason for the chip change was due to chips no longer being available, not uncommon, had to switch to others. The entire "legit Easycap was good, fake Easycap bad" is retconned BS. I think the "legit" Easycap folks even started to write BS like "knockoffs have malware!" out of desperation. In fact, given all the BS, it's hard to guarantee that the UK reseller wasn't actually borrowing the Chinese generic name. After all, it really wasn't a big "company" but rather a small hobby-like operation.

    Ironically, it's my understand that the "legit" EZcap116 is using a knockoff/"compatible" Philips/NXP chip (Silan) for video, with eMPIA for audio and bridge.

    The hallmark of all Easycaps, "fake" or not, is that (1) highlights are blown to hell, (2) signal is unstable.

    msgohan did a quick compare some years ago: https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/355216-Easycap-isn-t-so-Easycrappy

    None of this was hard to figure out. Crack open the card. None of the chips were sanded.

    The card sucks.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    I would be interested to know if my Roxie capture USB is a cheap knock off or rebased?, HU3180-E, made in Taiwan.
    I Would also like to know the chipsets it is using and is it worth changing to another device and recapture, time consuming
    Quote Quote  
  23. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    You have to crack it open and post a picture here of the chipset, but most likely it is a re badge, Roxio is a software maker they don't make hardware.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Doesn't the Device Manager give any info on the item?
    properties/details/hardware ID's
    Quote Quote  
  25. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    Not always.
    Quote Quote  
  26. mr. Eric-jan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Netherlands
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by DB83 View Post

    On another point, I do not do much VHS captures these days but I did one a month or so ago for another forum. Now I did resize on the vertical whilst leaving the horizontal at 704 (but then I do appreciate the pitfalls and provide for it). But what surprised me that with no cropping (AFAIK) I do not get any lower-frame head noise. Whether that is down to the capture device or the filtering of the source through an ADVC prior to capture I know not. Sorry I can not provide a sample of that due to its 'educational' content
    when you stretch the 704 content to 720 leaving aspect ratio intact, the lower and upper parts will be cut off in some cases ?
    Quote Quote  
  27. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    He is cropping from 720 to 704 not the other way around, He said he is resizing the vertical resolution which he should not do as it creates line flicker artifacts.
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member DB83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Well I do not see them.


    I rarely do this stuff these days and even forget my total procedure and tools used. But I am sure I de-interlaced BEFORE the resize.
    Quote Quote  
  29. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    Horizontal resizing is fine if someone wants the square pixel shape and don't want to deal with pixel aspect ratio flags, But resizing the vertical resolution brings no benefit at all and in most cases ends up disastrous, most people don't notice the artifacts but they are there, doing it after de-interlacing is less disastrous, luckily.
    The vertical pixels (scan lines) are whole numbers and to keep their integrity they can only be multiplied by whole numbers, Unlike the horizontal pixels that are some sort of long dashes (because analog video don't have a horizontal pixel structure) so resizing is more forgiving.
    Quote Quote  
  30. Member DB83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Like I stated earlier the topic has somewhat morphed in to this discussion and basically due to the incorrect assumption that 720*576 4:3 displays as 720*540.


    Now if someone wishes to start a proper topic on this and the relative merits of leaving the vertical at 576 - which I typically do for my own purposes - I will contribute. I will even see if there is a section from the resized video (where everyone keeps their clothes on ) I can upload so someone can point out to me these artefacts in the actual sample rather than a 'blind' theory.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!