VideoHelp Forum

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19
Thread
  1. I've used this card to convert several VHS-C tapes in the past using a tutorial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn_TDa9zY1c) and got great FPS but now when I connect it in VirtualDub (1 and 2, 32 bit and 64 bit) the FPS listed at the bottom of the window bounces around a ton, like 24, 25, 27, 21 fps even before I connect a source. I have the same problem on two different Win 10 computers. I've tried rebooting, turning off the internet (network adapters), different USB ports, etc. I've even tried OBS and the same thing happens. When I capture to a file the average FPS is around 26 so there is a ton of stuttering. Thousands of null frames are inserted over 20 minutes of capturing.

    Is it possible the card itself is dying? I'm thinking of buying another because up until this point it worked great, and they are cheap.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    If it worked in the past and now it is not it is obvious that Microsoft changed something via updates, Try finding and re-installing the capture device drivers.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    If it worked in the past and now it is not it is obvious that Microsoft changed something via updates, Try finding and re-installing the capture device drivers.
    Thanks for the reply.

    On the computer I originally had no issues with, that idea is a possibility, but on the second Windows 10 computer I installed all the drivers/software fresh and it still didn't work. (ie since I installed the the driver fresh no past updates could have changed settings the driver depends on, as the driver would just set them appropriately the first time)

    I also tried the capture card on another Windows 10 laptop and had the same issue. I also tried it on an old Windows 7 PC and interestingly, the FPS seems to be locked to 25fps (even if set to NTSC 29.97). If you set it to PAL it doesn't insert any frames. If only I lived in Europe

    I just set up a Windows XP VM to test your theory that some update messed things up, because if there is any OS that hasn't changed in a long time, it's XP. The Windows XP VM works just like the Windows 7 PC. It's locked at 25fps. Very interesting.

    I'm really starting to think the card has gone bad.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    Windows 7 is the best OS Microsoft ever made, From Win 8 everything went downhill. Are you sure the tape is NTSC and not some oddball format? If it is NTSC and defaulting to 25 fps it is usually a bad handshake between the capture card and the system, try unplugging/plugging the card or reboot the computer.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    Windows 7 is the best OS Microsoft ever made, From Win 8 everything went downhill. Are you sure the tape is NTSC and not some oddball format? If it is NTSC and defaulting to 25 fps it is usually a bad handshake between the capture card and the system, try unplugging/plugging the card or reboot the computer.
    The 25fps lock behavior is before I connect a source at all.

    Edit: And I've now seen the 25fps lock behavior on three computers.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    Try connecting the card or rebooting the computer with a 29.97 fps video being played in it.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    Try connecting the card or rebooting the computer with a 29.97 fps video being played in it.
    Oh okay. I will give that a shot. Thanks.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    PA USA
    Search Comp PM
    Dazzle, as you said, they are cheap, I would consider just getting another and if it still does this. Well, you've got a backup capture device. Having said all that, is this a commercially produced VHS tape? or is it something that was shot on a camera or recorded on a VCR? What was the source recording?

    I'm just wondering if the source is in fact VFR? Two speed VCR's have circuits to detect the sync pulses recorded at the bottom of the tape edge of the tape speed originally recorded at. It's timing not just slowing down. If a video is recorded in VFR mode, a camera will automatically adjust the frame rate according to what's going on in the scene.
    It's not important the problem be solved, only that the blame for the mistake is assigned correctly
    Quote Quote  
  9. Originally Posted by sum_guy View Post
    Dazzle, as you said, they are cheap, I would consider just getting another and if it still does this. Well, you've got a backup capture device. Having said all that, is this a commercially produced VHS tape? or is it something that was shot on a camera or recorded on a VCR? What was the source recording?

    I'm just wondering if the source is in fact VFR? Two speed VCR's have circuits to detect the sync pulses recorded at the bottom of the tape edge of the tape speed originally recorded at. It's timing not just slowing down. If a video is recorded in VFR mode, a camera will automatically adjust the frame rate according to what's going on in the scene.
    The source are VHS-C tapes that were originally recorded on a camcorder in the 90s. Mostly Standard Playback but I think one of them was EP.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    Try connecting the card or rebooting the computer with a 29.97 fps video being played in it.
    That was the problem!

    Using one of the drivers mentioned in:

    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/398965-Dazzle-DVC100-not-capturing-anymore-on-Windows-10

    I am getting only one null frame inserted every 5 seconds, which is just like they described in that thread. Not perfect but looks like I was wrong about this being hardware!

    I have an older PC that would probably run Windows 7 fine. I might give that a shot.

    Thanks for your help!
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    PA USA
    Search Comp PM
    If you want your capture to look just like the VHS source (unfortunately it can't look any better), capture at 640x480 at 29.967fps, and then DEINTERLACE it. You can do that with software like Adobe Premiere or VirtualDub. However, Some would say that such a high resolution for a VHS source is a waste of time and space, but I suggest: if you like things perfect, try that resolution. Now, if you don't need such perfection, or your system can't keep that up, use 512x384 at 29.967 and the result will look quite as good as 640x480. At last, if you want to make a VCD compliant video stream (which MUST be 352x240 at 29.967fps), capture at 352x480 at 29.967fps (this way you get both fields), and then resize it to 352x240 using VirtualDub with the "precise bicubic" filter on.

    If your capture card can't capture in resolutions like 352x480 or 512x384, use VirtualDub to do it by choosing the option "set custom format" under the "video" menu.
    It's not important the problem be solved, only that the blame for the mistake is assigned correctly
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    I would counter and say 704x480 or 720x480 is as close as you can get (using consumer gear). 640x480 is just the resized, square pixel equivalent.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  13. Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    I would counter and say 704x480 or 720x480 is as close as you can get (using consumer gear). 640x480 is just the resized, square pixel equivalent.

    Scott
    sum_guy posted the same thing in another thread and I just responded to it referencing someone else arguing for the idea you're arguing for.

    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/398965-Dazzle-DVC100-not-capturing-anymore-on-Wind...e5#post2638460
    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 sum_guy View Post
    If you want your capture to look just like the VHS source (unfortunately it can't look any better), capture at 640x480 at 29.967fps, and then DEINTERLACE it. You can do that with software like Adobe Premiere or VirtualDub. However, Some would say that such a high resolution for a VHS source is a waste of time and space, but I suggest: if you like things perfect, try that resolution. Now, if you don't need such perfection, or your system can't keep that up, use 512x384 at 29.967 and the result will look quite as good as 640x480. At last, if you want to make a VCD compliant video stream (which MUST be 352x240 at 29.967fps), capture at 352x480 at 29.967fps (this way you get both fields), and then resize it to 352x240 using VirtualDub with the "precise bicubic" filter on.

    If your capture card can't capture in resolutions like 352x480 or 512x384, use VirtualDub to do it by choosing the option "set custom format" under the "video" menu.
    No, Wrong advice. The hardware samples at 720x480 (regardless what the VHS's equivalent resolution is), any resolution you choose at the output will be a resize by the software. So no, Capture at the native hardware resolution of 720x480 (720x576 PAL/SECAM), Crop to 704x480 using vdub2 (removing the 16 black pixels added by the card as a safe overscan) and set the aspect ratio to 4:3 from 704x480 not 720x480. Most people set the aspect ratio from 720 which will give a horizontal squeeze of about 3% and nasty black pillars on the sides of the frame.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    No, Wrong advice. The hardware samples at 720x480 (regardless what the VHS's equivalent resolution is), any resolution you choose at the output will be a resize by the software. So no, Capture at the native hardware resolution of 720x480 (720x576 PAL/SECAM), Crop to 704x480 using vdub2 (removing the 16 black pixels added by the card as a safe overscan) and set the aspect ratio to 4:3 from 704x480 not 720x480. Most people set the aspect ratio from 720 which will give a horizontal squeeze of about 3% and nasty black pillars on the sides of the frame.
    We posted at almost the exact same time. I linked to my reply in another thread where sum_guy posted the same thing you're responding to here. Here is what I posted:

    "I've been capturing at 720x480 based on the instructions in this tutorial video:

    https://youtu.be/sn_TDa9zY1c?t=443

    "The typical digital representation of NTSC analog video is this slightly strange aspect ratio of 720x480"

    In the description he says you can resize it after you capture it:

    Q: 720x480 doesn't always look right in players. Shouldn't I capture in 640x480?
    A: No, you should capture at 720x480 and then resize to 640x480 after deinterlacing. This is because some drivers actually only support 720x480 and resize themselves, usually with a lower-quality algorithm. If you do it yourself, you get better results. Also, ALWAYS RESIZE *AFTER* DEINTERLACING.

    He says YouTube will only preserve 60fps if the video is at least 720p so you have to increase the resolution and when he does that he corrects the aspect ratio by not doing a 1:1 increase. ie he doesn't go from 720x480 to 1080x720, he goes to 960x720:

    https://youtu.be/sn_TDa9zY1c?t=1544 "

    This sounds like what you're saying. Is this process okay? I didn't notice the extra 16 pixels before but now I see them. I guess I could crop that out.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Yes - important to remember that 720x480 and 720x576 are not actually 4:3 or 16:9 wide. In both 480 and 576 the 720 samples in a line horizontally mean that 720 sample line is a bit wider than 4:3 or 16:9

    In 576/50Hz land the actual 4:3 or 16:9 image is in the central 702x576 section of the 720x576 image (with 9 samples of padding either side (18 in total) - which is there to avoid truncation of transients etc. on analogue sources). If you are upscaling to 720p or 1080i/p you should scale the central 702x576 portion to 1440x1080 for 4:3/1920x1080 for 16:9 (or to 960x720 for 4:3 / 1280x720 for 16:9 in 720p)

    In 480/59.94Hz land the numbers are slightly different - but I'm not 100% sure what they are since the active vertical height of 525 video was tweaked to 480 from 483-486 previously with the transition to digital.

    Incidentally - this is why 704x576 and 704x480 are widely used in DVB and ATSC digital TV broadcasts - as in theory there shouldn't be much picture in the 16 extra samples...
    Quote Quote  
  17. Originally Posted by nogginvid View Post
    Yes - important to remember that 720x480 and 720x576 are not actually 4:3 or 16:9 wide. In both 480 and 576 the 720 samples in a line horizontally mean that 720 sample line is a bit wider than 4:3 or 16:9

    In 576/50Hz land the actual 4:3 or 16:9 image is in the central 702x576 section of the 720x576 image (with 9 samples of padding either side (18 in total) - which is there to avoid truncation of transients etc. on analogue sources). If you are upscaling to 720p or 1080i/p you should scale the central 702x576 portion to 1440x1080 for 4:3/1920x1080 for 16:9 (or to 960x720 for 4:3 / 1280x720 for 16:9 in 720p)

    In 480/59.94Hz land the numbers are slightly different - but I'm not 100% sure what they are since the active vertical height of 525 video was tweaked to 480 from 483-486 previously with the transition to digital.

    Incidentally - this is why 704x576 and 704x480 are widely used in DVB and ATSC digital TV broadcasts - as in theory there shouldn't be much picture in the 16 extra samples...
    Thanks for this info!
    Quote Quote  
  18. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by nogginvid View Post
    Yes - important to remember that 720x480 and 720x576 are not actually 4:3 or 16:9 wide. In both 480 and 576 the 720 samples in a line horizontally mean that 720 sample line is a bit wider than 4:3 or 16:9

    In 576/50Hz land the actual 4:3 or 16:9 image is in the central 702x576 section of the 720x576 image (with 9 samples of padding either side (18 in total) - which is there to avoid truncation of transients etc. on analogue sources). If you are upscaling to 720p or 1080i/p you should scale the central 702x576 portion to 1440x1080 for 4:3/1920x1080 for 16:9 (or to 960x720 for 4:3 / 1280x720 for 16:9 in 720p)

    In 480/59.94Hz land the numbers are slightly different - but I'm not 100% sure what they are since the active vertical height of 525 video was tweaked to 480 from 483-486 previously with the transition to digital.

    Incidentally - this is why 704x576 and 704x480 are widely used in DVB and ATSC digital TV broadcasts - as in theory there shouldn't be much picture in the 16 extra samples...
    From personal experience with NTSC and PAL both consumer and pro formats, I found that there isn't a definitive number for the horizonal active video area, It usually varies from 698 to 708, close to 704 in most cases, VHS Pre-recorded tapes and portable formats like V8/Hi8 are the closest to 704, Pro format tapes are dead on 704. The 486 for NTSC pro capture devices just adds 6 extra blank lines on top of the frame, my guess is there to carry the signaling for live broadcast such as teletext, caption, aspect ratio flags and other data, I don't know why it is not used for PAL/SECAM, or maybe it's already there, hence 576 (570+6).

    When cropping, + or - 4 pixels is not a big deal, It will not be noticeable when setting the aspect ratio, so just crop off up to the video area on each side. And yes I use 1440x1080 square pixel, customers are demanding it and I use it for my youtube channel, I haven't seen bad results from upscaling from 480 to 1080 as opposed to what have been said here before about upscaling SD videos. Now I come to think about it, upscaling to 8K (4320 lines) gives a multiple integer of 480, so each SD line is represented by 9 lines (and no, I'm not ready nor excided about 8K).
    Quote Quote  
  19. I think NTSC style closed captioning was pretty rare in PAL, though it does exist. For broadcasts you usually got optional closed captioning via a specific teletext page (which varied depending on the channel). Teletext was stored in the non-visible VBI lines though, and a VHS tape doesn't have high enough bandwidth to store it properly. (It is possible to extract teletext from VHS tapes through averaging if one has a longer off-air recording but not in real time like from broadcast, and probably wouldn't suffice for the CC page as that would change more often than other pages.) Teletext was readable from SVHS and laserdisc recordings though the former didn't have many retail releases.

    Widescreen signalling is recorded on line 23 for PAL/SECAM but I don't remember off the top of my head if that's in the visible area. A number of 2000s VCRs feature "16:9"/"widescreen" support but I'm not sure what exactly that entails.


    You want to scale to at least 1080P for youtube uploads, or maybe even more. Even if the content stays at full framerate/resolution at least the last time I tried it 720P ended up being overly compressed and blocky by yt.
    Quote Quote