Terratec Cinergy 400 Proper Aspect Ratio for Recording and Handling

[Tek03]

Good evening.
I'm still having issues with my vhs digitizing work.
I'm capturing VHS and S-VHS tapes with my TerraTec Cinergy 400 PCI in 704x576 resolution because, as suggested by other users on the forum, it would keep the correct aspect ratio. Here is a short example:

1.BBCoutroVHS_Terratec400+ES10_704.avi

I didn't bother much about the AR until I started exporting my lossless captures to DVD, H.264 or deinterlacing them with QTGMC. I realized that my captures didn't have a 4:3 Display Aspect Ratio, but 1.222,

 
Width : 704 pixels 
Height : 576 pixels 
Display aspect ratio : 1.222 
Frame rate : 25.000 FPS 
Standard : PAL

so if I brought them into DVDFlick, the final product would have black bars at the sides (regardless of the DVD res), or if I ran them in my AviSynth QTGMC script, they would stretch a bit when upscaling to 960x720 (1:1 sar). This is how they compare (nnedi_rpow2 960x720 resize, 704x576 dvd, 704x576 original capture):



2.dvdflick_704x576_dvd_default.VOB
3.BBCoutroVHS_Terratec400+ES10_960x720_25p.mov

This gets even more "curious" when I compare the recordings with the one I made using only the Panasonic DMR-ES10 I leave between the VCR and the card:
4.BBCoutroVHS_ES10_704x576.mkv

[Attachment 66289 - Click to enlarge]

Width : 704 pixels 
Height : 576 pixels 
Display aspect ratio : 4:3 
Frame rate mode : Constant 
Frame rate : 25.000 FPS 
Standard : PAL

It is 704x576, but with a 4:3 PAR and it perfectly overlaps with the dvdflick dvd and 960x720 resize, so the terratec capture is the only one that appears to be out of place here.

What am I doing wrong and/or what Should I do aspect-ratio-wise?


p.s. the card driver is the one provided in the original cd, which appears to be the 1.2.0.5 . I could find a copy of 1.4 WDM driver for Windows 98/ME, which by the way refused to install both on XP sp3 and 98 SE.

[jagabo]

There's nothing mysterious here. 704x576 is a normal frame size for a PAL ITU standard definition analog video capture. Virtually all capture devices follow this spec. The frame size is not 4:3 but the picture contained in it is supposed to be viewed as 4:3. AVI doesn't really have a display aspect ratio flag so some editors/converters will display it at the frame's aspect ratio (704x576, 11:9). It's up to you to force the display aspect ratio to 4:3 when you encode. This is done explicitly by setting the display aspect ratio to 4:3 or the sample aspect ratio (aka pixel aspect ratio) to 12:11. An alternative is to resize the frame to a 16:9 size and encode as square pixel (1:1 SAR). That's what you did when you resized to 960x720.

[Tek03]

It's up to you to force the display aspect ratio to 4:3 when you encode

Do you mean something like this?

[Attachment 66290 - Click to enlarge]

[Attachment 66291 - Click to enlarge]

[jagabo]

The x264 SAR settings are correct. I don't know about that other program. Those appear to be display aspect ratios, not pixel aspect ratios.

[Tek03]

The x264 SAR settings are correct. I don't know about that other program. Those appear to be display aspect ratios, not pixel aspect ratios.

If I use that setting on DVDFlick it will create a 720x576 PAR 4:3 file with no borders.

[dellsam34]

Perhaps you should capture at 720x576, then crop to 704x576 and then resize to 768x576 for square pixel or just set the aspect ratio to 4:3 for non square pixel, Setting the resolution during capturing meant that the capture software is told to resize to 704x576 from 720x576 on the fly.

[jagabo]

Setting the resolution during capturing meant that the capture software is told to resize to 704x576 from 720x576 on the fly.

That's not necessarily the case. Many capture devices support native ITU 704x576 (and 704x480 for NTSC) directly.

[dellsam34]

Not necessarily but it could well be the case, The OP didn't mention what software he is capturing with but it's worth investigating.

[Skiller]

Whether 720 or 704 is the correct size to choose with the Terratec Cinergy 400 depends on the driver you use.
If you choose the wrong size, the driver will just blindly resize to that, so caution needs to be taken.

If you are using the classic (recommended) 1.4 driver the correct size is 704.
If you are using a newer "WDM" labeled driver, 720 is correct.

I have the classic 1.4 driver on my PC, if you need, I can attach it.

[Tek03]

Not necessarily but it could well be the case, The OP didn't mention what software he is capturing with but it's worth investigating.

I'm recording via its own software, the one attached below:


[Attachment 66312 - Click to enlarge]

[Tek03]

If you are using the classic (recommended) 1.4 driver the correct size is 704.
If you are using a newer "WDM" labeled driver, 720 is correct.

I'm using the driver provided in the original CD:

[Attachment 66313 - Click to enlarge]

...Which appears to be version 1.2.0.5 ...

[Attachment 66315 - Click to enlarge]

I have the classic 1.4 driver on my PC, if you need, I can attach it.

That would be nice, thanks. TerraTec site won't host drivers for old cards anymore, which I couldn't even access via Wayback Machine .

[Sharc]

The active picture of the OP's capture seems to have a width of 694 pixels only (rather than 704).
Anyone knows whether the white BBC logo letter blocks are originally exact squares or what its width/hight ratio is? It could be an indication for correct cropping and resizing to eliminate any driver and authoring program doubts ....

[Tek03]

Anyone knows whether the white BBC logo letter blocks are originally exact squares or what its width/hight ratio is? It could be an indication for correct cropping and resizing to eliminate any driver and authoring program doubts ....

No, they aren't.
I looked up on Wikipedia and downloaded the 1997-2021 logo (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BBC_logo_%281997-2021%29.svg), which does not seem to have exact squares:


[Attachment 66317 - Click to enlarge]

Same results with the logo I grabbed from a 2010 BBC homepage (https://web.archive.org/web/20100107055443/http://www.bbc.co.uk/):


[Attachment 66318 - Click to enlarge]

The tape is from 2001-2003 by the way

[jagabo]

Try capturing the same material twice, once at 720x576, again at 704x576. Then compare the two caps. See if the difference is resizing or extra pixels at the edges.

[Tek03]

See if the difference is resizing or extra pixels at the edges.

Well... it didn't work out that way...

720x576 :
[Attachment 66324 - Click to enlarge] 704x576:
[Attachment 66325 - Click to enlarge]

The first capture is 5:4 DAR,

Width : 720 pixels 
Height : 576 pixels 
Display aspect ratio : 5:4 
Frame rate : 25.000 FPS 
Standard : PAL

While the second 1,222 DAR.

Width : 704 pixels 
Height : 576 pixels 
Display aspect ratio : 1.222 
Frame rate : 25.000 FPS 
Standard : PAL

BOTH of them with NO borders.

Plus, if I bring them into DVDFlick and set PAR to 4:3, like this:

[Attachment 66290 - Click to enlarge]

I will always get a 720x576 4:3 DAR picture, regardless of whether is 720 or 704:

720x576 set to 4:3:
[Attachment 66326 - Click to enlarge] 704x576 set to 4:3:
[Attachment 66327 - Click to enlarge]

EDIT:

I've also tried recording with the DMR-ES10 only and the result is the same as above:

720x576 4:3 DAR picture

[Attachment 66328 - Click to enlarge]

But with the Canon MV600i MiniDV camcorder (720x576 4:3), I will get black bars at the sides:

[Attachment 66330 - Click to enlarge]

[jagabo]

One has been resized from the other. It's hard to say which is the proper ITU cap. The black boders (~2 on the left, 8 on the right, 10 total) don't exactly match either. Try capturing some other tapes. And capturing something with a bright background will make it easier to see and measure the borders. The active picture for a PAL cap should be about 702 pixels.

[Skiller]

Here is the recommended driver version.

With this driver, the correct capture width is 704. I know because I have been using a Terratec Cinergy 400 myself for many years with this driver.

[Tek03]

Here is the recommended driver version.

With this driver, the correct capture width is 704. I know because I have been using a Terratec Cinergy 400 myself for many years with this driver.

Thank you. I will install the driver in 98SE and see if the issue will be solved.
Just to clarify, do I have to set 704x576 both in "TV" and "Video Recording" in the software?

[Attachment 66331 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 66332 - Click to enlarge]

One has been resized from the other. It's hard to say which is the proper ITU cap. The black boders (~2 on the left, 8 on the right, 10 total) don't exactly match either. Try capturing some other tapes. And capturing something with a bright background will make it easier to see and measure the borders. The active picture for a PAL cap should be about 702 pixels.

I'll try skiller's driver first and see if I can solve it that way.

[Skiller]

Thank you. I will install the driver in 98SE and see if the issue will be solved.

The driver works in Windows XP SP3 as well (I never used anything else with the Cinergy 400).

Just to clarify, do I have to set 704x576 both in "TV" and "Video Recording" in the software?

I don't think anyone here on this forum ever used the software that comes with the card and neither did I. I would recommend to use the tried and trusted VirtualDub 1.9.

[Tek03]

The driver works in Windows XP SP3 as well (I never used anything else with the Cinergy 400).

It didn't... I'm running it on 2000 SP4... But now it works.

I don't think anyone here on this forum ever used the software that comes with the card and neither did I. I would recommend to use the tried and trusted VirtualDub 1.9.

I've downloaded VirtualDub 1.9.11 and ran some tests with this 1.4 driver. I'm getting the same file by the way...

BBCoutroVHS_Terratec400+ES10_704_1.4.avi

Width : 704 pixels 
Height : 576 pixels 
Display aspect ratio : 1.222 
Frame rate : 25.000 FPS 
Standard : PAL

[dellsam34]

Black frames are not the choice to inspect frame edges, But I think there is some cropping going on based on the splash rainbow, Either way capturing at 720x576 is always going to be better because consumer tapes never exhibit equal amount of black borders on the sides of the frame, it is usually bigger on the right side, Cropping manually later to 704 gives you the choice of the amount of pixels to chop off on each side resulting in saving as much details as possible, Yes it is an extra manual step but it can be performed with other steps such as de-interlacing and resizing to square pixel in one single script, The only manual part of it is setting the crop positions.

Like others said, just use a third party software like vdub or AmarecTV and capture at 720x576.

[Sharc]

Anyone knows whether the white BBC logo letter blocks are originally exact squares or what its width/hight ratio is? It could be an indication for correct cropping and resizing to eliminate any driver and authoring program doubts ....

No, they aren't.
I looked up on Wikipedia and downloaded the 1997-2021 logo (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BBC_logo_%281997-2021%29.svg), which does not seem to have exact squares:


[Attachment 66317 - Click to enlarge]

Same results with the logo I grabbed from a 2010 BBC homepage (https://web.archive.org/web/20100107055443/http://www.bbc.co.uk/):


[Attachment 66318 - Click to enlarge]

The tape is from 2001-2003 by the way

Based on that info the letter blocks have an aspect ratio of 1.0596 (=302/285). So whatever you do (capture, crop and resize) you can verify this ratio on your final encoded/authored output. It should be close to 1.06 for an undistorted playback. A sort of sanity check.
In this sense the dmr_es10.jpg seems to be the most correct to me.

So according to my pixel ruler analysis (and best guess as the edges of the 2x zoomed pictures are fuzzy):
- 720.jpg and 704.jpg are slightly squeezed horizontally; about 1.01 for the letter blocks AR.
- mv600i.jpg is also very slightly squeezed, about 1.04
- 720-4.3.jpg and 704-4.3.jpg are slightly stretched horizontally, about 1.08
- dmr_es10.jpg is the winner as it is pretty close to 1.06.

Bottom line: with the exception of 720.jpg and 704.jpg the pictures are all within "acceptable" tolerance regarding the residual aspect ratio distortion, as I see it. The differences are subtle.

The script I would apply to your BBC capture, avoiding resizing:

AVISource("BBCoutroVHS_Terratec400+ES10_704.avi")
crop(2,4,-18,-12) #removes the side bars and the head switching crud
addborders(10,8,10,8) #add borders back symmetrically and pad to 704x576 for PAL DVD compliance

Encode with PAR 12:11 and DAR 4:3.
The BBC logo is displayed correctly, undistorted.

[jagabo]

I've downloaded VirtualDub 1.9.11 and ran some tests with this 1.4 driver. I'm getting the same file by the way...

Yes, it's the same as before 704x576 with a 2 pixel wide black border at the left, 8 pixels wide at the right).

Stop using a clip with a black background to make it easier for you to see the borders. And there's always the possbility that there's something unusual about this particular tape. Try another.

[Skiller]

The driver works in Windows XP SP3 as well (I never used anything else with the Cinergy 400).

It didn't... I'm running it on 2000 SP4... But now it works.

Odd, I never had a problem with this capture card under XP.

Like others said, just use a third party software like vdub or AmarecTV and capture at 720x576.

But a correctly proportioned 720 frame is not possible without using the WDM driver with this particular capture card. You can select 720x576 in VDub but it will just be a resized version of the 704 window (=52 µs of analog signal, not the 53.333 µs that 720 needs).
And with the WDM driver it is the opposite – only 720 is then correct.

[dellsam34]

Yes I meant capture in vdub with the 720 driver.

[Skiller]

OK, but the WDM driver is not recommended for other reasons that can be looked up in old threads.

[dellsam34]

Such as?

[Tek03]

[QUOTE=jagabo;2664978]

Stop using a clip with a black background to make it easier for you to see the borders

That was for comparison's sake, since I'd already started with the bbc outro. By the way you are right indeed, so I made 4 more tests:

(704x576)

1989 Italian movie VHS:
[Attachment 66347 - Click to enlarge]
1990s Walt Disney VHS:
[Attachment 66349 - Click to enlarge]
1990s S-VHS recording with Prosumer Camcorder:
[Attachment 66350 - Click to enlarge]


(720x576)

Same S-VHS tape as the last one:
[Attachment 66351 - Click to enlarge]

So, between 704x576 and 720x576 there is only a stretch.

[jagabo]

And the ~702x576 active picture is consistent with an ITU 704x576 cap.

[dellsam34]

You should have posted 720 screen shots from the exact same frames to compare them to, But it's obvious that it's cropping not resizing judging by the disappearance of the left and right black borders, But it is not obvious what the top and bottom borders look like in 720 case.