VideoHelp Forum


Try StreamFab All-in-One and rip streaming video! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3
FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 61 to 72 of 72
Thread
  1. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Soundguy View Post
    Explain to me then, why after 40k views on a video, no-one has pointed out my mistake. I wish people would tbh, how am I to learn otherwise?
    Because people go to youtube to watch the contents not the frame rate, Besides people tend to nit and pick on higher quality videos HD and 4K, low resolution and low quality videos like in your sample are hard to notice the quality differences.

    Just a tip about youtube, upscale to 1440x1080 if you want less compression artifacts, It is the lowest resolution that youtube considers your video as SD and apply a higher tier compression.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Originally Posted by Soundguy View Post
    For comparison's sake, I've also included the same footage recorded with the bundled Honestech software, plus my original OBS recording.
    They're all crap. But the 50 fps VirtualDub cap has the smoothest motion. Upscale it to 720p50 for youtube.
    But the source is 25 fps, so wouldn't it be better to keep it at 480? to save another encode. YouTube strips out the dupe frames, so the motion should be identical. I say "should", because the dupe frames do have slight differences, due to jitter on the tape. I'm not sure if that makes a perceptible difference to the motion once they're removed, I'm not noticing it in this samples.

    https://youtu.be/fAxE2jn5AD8 upscaled 720@50 fps

    https://youtu.be/ubG-ACFoCnk 480@25 fps

    Could you just do a quick check to see if you think motion is better in 50 fps on the YT samples? looks about the same to me. Apologies for any ads, already had a complaint about that, but the music will trigger them, not much I can do. The ad revenue goes to the music licensor, not me.

    Although I've been thinking about getting a better device to do this properly, maybe going back and re-doing some of my older VHS transfers too. As I don't really want these to be crap, I spent a long time recording them back in the day.

    What would be a good product that would give better results? I'm prepared to splash out a little bit. Could I get a suitable, semi-decent device for this task, for say around 100-150?
    Quote Quote  
  3. Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    Because people go to youtube to watch the contents not the frame rate, Besides people tend to nit and pick on higher quality videos HD and 4K, low resolution and low quality videos like in your sample are hard to notice the quality differences. .
    Yes, we are on the same page as that's more or less what I've been saying.


    Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    Just a tip about youtube, upscale to 1440x1080 if you want less compression artifacts, It is the lowest resolution that youtube considers your video as SD and apply a higher tier compression.
    OK thanks, but that would require an extra encode, something I'm always wary of, perhaps that's my audio background kicking in, as more than one lossy encode is a big no-no in that field. Would the reduction of compression artifacts be more beneficial than the quality loss from the encode?
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    You don't necessarily re-encode or encode in the first place, Take your lossless capture file, resize it to 1440x1080 and upload to youtube, let youtube encode it for you. That's how I upload my captures to youtube.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    You don't necessarily re-encode or encode in the first place, Take your lossless capture file, resize it to 1440x1080 and upload to youtube, let youtube encode it for you. That's how I upload my captures to youtube.
    So resizing doesn't re-encode or cause any quality loss? That surprises me, as I thought it would, seeing as it's taking the source and changing it. Bear in mind that I'm unable to record losslessly at the moment, plus I've always been led to believe that it's a huge waste of space for projects like mine.

    You guys have actually got me thinking about doing this right though. See my earlier post about wanting to get a new device, do you have any recommendations?
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by Soundguy View Post
    But the source is 25 fps
    The source isn't 25 fps. PAL VHS is 50 fields per second. Every one of those fields can be from a different point in time. Your 50p cap from VirtualDub has mostly 2 frames (originally fields) per source frame but in many places are are 3 fields per source frame. I even saw a few places where there were 4 frames per source frame. This is probably because the game console was usually generating frames at 25p but sometimes slowed to 16.7p (3 fields) or even 12.5p (4 fields).

    The 720p50 youtube video is clearly smoother than the 25p versions. Watch the motion of the buildings and other things in the background. There are very few obvious jerks in the 50p video. Many more in the 25p video.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Originally Posted by Soundguy View Post
    But the source is 25 fps
    The source isn't 25 fps. PAL VHS is 50 fields per second. Every one of those fields can be from a different point in time. Your 50p cap from VirtualDub has mostly 2 frames (originally fields) per source frame but in many places are are 3 fields per source frame. I even saw a few places where there were 4 frames per source frame. This is probably because the game console was usually generating frames at 25p but sometimes slowed to 16.7p (3 fields) or even 12.5p (4 fields).

    The 720p50 youtube video is clearly smoother than the 25p versions. Watch the motion of the buildings and other things in the background. There are very few obvious jerks in the 50p video. Many more in the 25p video.
    Thanks for the info, I knew there were 50 fields but I wasn't aware they would show separate points of time, the way I understood interlacing is that two combine together, which gives 25 points, but bear in mind my technical knowledge in this field is limited, which is why I'm here. So because the game is running at an uneven framerate, removing those frames will cause jerk? I think I understand. Am I right in thinking that it's the 3 field sections that would cause it, not the 4 field sections?

    This may be moot now though, did you see the part about wanting to re-do this with a better device? do you have any recommendations?
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    De-interlacing, resizing incur loss just like encoding but doing it on lossless files yields better results than doing it on an already encoded files.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    De-interlacing, resizing incur loss just like encoding but doing it on lossless files yields better results than doing it on an already encoded files.
    Well yes, that goes without saying. My question was, is the loss incurred a worthy trade-off for less compression artifacts on YouTube?
    Quote Quote  
  10. I've been researching a new device and articles like this crop up, https://vhsconverters.com/7-video-capture-devices-tested-on-windows-10/

    The guy is testing everything on OBS, this is why people like me make mistakes, we see articles like that and just assume that's the "done" thing.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member DB83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    And I would not touch the majority of those products with a barge-pole.


    'Easycap' seems to be this guy's 'fetish' or 'easycrap' as they are known around here - the device you have is likely to be one of their 'cousins'. The only one that had some credibility was the EZcap116 and even that has been pirated.


    I thought with the small number of tapes you had you were not going to think about other hardware - unless you plan on redoing all the others as well.


    The only device I can rec is a Hauppauge USB-Live2. Two are listed on Amazon. One is shipped from the US. The UK sourced one is doubtful to me. My own Amazon page says I bought this in 2013 and indeed I did by a USB-Live2 at that time. However the box suggests it includes Arcsoft software. Hauppauge does NOT come with any other software other than WinTV which you would not use - a driver is available for download.


    A 'proper' USB-Live2 can be acquired from Amazon.fr . But do read the posts in this sub-forum since they will mention other products fully compatable with Win10.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Originally Posted by DB83 View Post
    And I would not touch the majority of those products with a barge-pole.


    'Easycap' seems to be this guy's 'fetish' or 'easycrap' as they are known around here - the device you have is likely to be one of their 'cousins'. The only one that had some credibility was the EZcap116 and even that has been pirated.


    I thought with the small number of tapes you had you were not going to think about other hardware - unless you plan on redoing all the others as well.


    The only device I can rec is a Hauppauge USB-Live2. Two are listed on Amazon. One is shipped from the US. The UK sourced one is doubtful to me. My own Amazon page says I bought this in 2013 and indeed I did by a USB-Live2 at that time. However the box suggests it includes Arcsoft software. Hauppauge does NOT come with any other software other than WinTV which you would not use - a driver is available for download.


    A 'proper' USB-Live2 can be acquired from Amazon.fr . But do read the posts in this sub-forum since they will mention other products fully compatable with Win10.
    Thanks, yes I'm seriously thinking about re-doing some.

    I've actually been doing this for years, have hundreds of tapes. Before, I was on a Mac set up with a different device, and my software was configured by a video professional. When I switched to Windows a couple of years ago, I had to change my set up, so everything I've done since then has been with OBS.

    I had a similar device to the one I've got now, but it had a fault with the audio, so I got my current one to mop up the last few tapes. I'm prepared to re-do every tape I captured since migrating to Windows, I'm happy with the ones I did on the Mac.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads