I know you're saying this for the sake of argument but we actually can't, capture cards sample at 720x576 (or 480 for NTSC) at the chip level, You can tell the driver/software to resize to whatever resolution at the output of the software but the actual conversion to digital is always @ 720 at the hardware level.
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 60 of 82
Thread
-
-
-
Ignore list: hello_hello, tried, TechLord, Snoopy329
-
-
Maybe it wasn't exactly 30 years ago, but back in the 90's I had bought a Compaq that I upgraded with what at the time was a massive 128mb ram and I had added a second 10gb hdd to supplement the 10gb drive it came with.
I had added an capture card that had coax in capabilities, and I had run a splitter to split the cable signal going to my TV.
Back then it was possible to bypass the cable box and still get most channels.
I started with capturing The Simpsons, Married With Children and X-Files along with football games.
Somewhere along the lines I got the idea to rent VHS tapes from the local rental place and record them into my computer.
I remember capturing a few of them, basically instead of outputting the signal from the VCR to the TV, I outputted it to the capture card and used a video for Windows application to record.
I quickly ran out of space and the computer did not have room for another internal drive,
I did eventually get an external drive to move all my captures to but by then DVD was out and I had lost interest in VHS.
Unfortunately years ago that drive gave up the ghost and took all those captures along with it.
I still have a JVC S3600U sitting behind me that hasn't been used in years. -
I'm a troll because i have a different opinion than what is commonly accepted and think that it may be time to try different methods, considering how many posts you see in forums all over the place with people having the same problem.
At some point you need to investigate if there is a better way. -
-
I don't think so. Encoding tests are not of much interest to me. I rarely read more than the first or second post in those types of threads let alone reply to them. The closest I have come to that subject in the past year was a recent thread titled "Why does x265 suck so bad?". As it happens, you did post there too.
Ignore list: hello_hello, tried, TechLord, Snoopy329 -
People having the same problem because they use the same cheap junk you are referring to, I did investigate and used different methods the mainstream don't use and work pretty well for me, But not anyone willing to go that route, Most people with problems go for out of the standard cheap stuff and cheap stuff don't work, simple as that.
-
Despite the personal smear
-
Simple question.
Assume you had a VHS tape that contained some critical data, birth of a child, evidence from a crime scene, evidence for a lawsuit, something where you needed to preserve the content as precisely as possible.
You wouldn't do what is advocated in forums around the net, you would probably contact a forensic lab and hire them to make a forensic backup of the content.
So the question is what equipment are they using?
I doubt they hook up a VCR to a TV and then bang their heads against the wall trying to fix the captured footage.
What is the absolute best capture card i can buy right now, money no object?
What is the best way to extract the data from the VHS tape before it is passed to a capture card, money no object?
Getting back to the lossless issue, people keep advocating for lossless workflows and yet no one had instructed anyone that for reliable lossless work you really should be using RAID , at which point you really want a minimum RAID 0+1, if not RAID 5.
At the very least, if you are planning on using lossless then at least advise a really fast NVMe that can hit I/O of 1gb/s.
I guarantee you there are people trying to capture lossless using spinning rust.Last edited by sophisticles; 4th May 2024 at 18:59.
-
Not a problem, I tend to have polarizing opinions, like I think CRF is a scam, i consider x264 to be over-engineered and x265 to be even worse, I think lossless is a waste of time and space, useful for archiving but not for actual production work.
I also think that people do things because they have always been done that way or because some cult of personality decreed that such and such is the best way to do something and God forbid anyone questions it.
I believe in the proof is in the pudding and if you have thousands of threads around the net with people basically having the same problems despite following the recommended workflow, at some point you need to ask yourself if this is really the best way. -
Yep.
I didn't start to browse digital capture options until about 1995. At that time, it was entirely closed-sourced $$,$$$+ proprietary hardware (essentially what became used for DVD-Video). Or something that was so incredibly crappy that it was essentially a digital flipbook made with crayons -- all for the low price of about $500! And ISA or SCSI, too!
Around 1997, I got to use SGI MediaBase servers, and that was almost like VCD quality for streaming (before the word "streaming" really existed). DVD-Video quality, and better, was possible, and SGI had about 5 years advantage over x86. So I waited, and kept restoring video in the analog domain.
DV was viable starting with the Pemtium III in 1999, and started to get "passthrough" options around the same time. That's also when the Canopus boxes came out. Beta-quality finally-decent capture cards came in 2000 from Matrox and ATI. But it was really 2001 and the ATI AIW Radeon that it became viable for under $500, and with max possible analog quality. I still have the ads from the back of computer and photo/video magazines, showing the options and pricing.
Most of the crappy cards of the era all used BT8x8 (Conexant) chips, from late 90s into 00s. Some of the earliest VH posts about capturing were about problems with those cards.
So, again, claiming 1994 is complete BS.
At very earliest, you did that in 1999. And you surely had a BT8x8 card.Last edited by lordsmurf; 4th May 2024 at 15:51.
Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS -
It’s the opposite.
The thousands of threads around the net with people having the same problem is because they do not follow the recommended workflow (high-end S-VHS with TBC, optional external TBC, recommended capture card, recommended software, lossless YUV 4:2:2 interlaced capture)
You can easily verify it by yourself even here on videohelp forums! -
Forensic labs have moved on from VHS, they no longer have such equipement, But for the sake of argument, let's say a cold case have been reopened after finding a video tape somewhere in storage, The investigators would try to source the equipment if they can, be it a time-lapse VCR for security cameras, a consumer VCR for low speed consumer tapes or a pro VCR for SP tapes which a high end consumer VCR can do better due the fact that pro VCRs are worn out from heavy use and will require service, or a camcorder if the tape is a camcorder format. But since they lack the knowledge in such equipment they will most likely put a bid for someone to come and help, A knowledgeable hobbyist like some of us here with different types of equipement pro and consumer, Or a well established business in high quality work like Colin from video99.co.uk, Obsolete video service, digitalfaq.com and the likes, people that repair and tune their own equipment just like some of us the hobbyists, not got-memories, west coast digitizing, kodak, legacybox, these are the fast food joints not restaurants with chefs.
There is no such "what's the best capture card money can buy?", People who often ask this question are ignorant people, and I don't mean by ignorant insult, people with very limited knowledge in the field like yourself, just like me going into retro gaming community or retro computing and ask what is the best retro unit money can buy today? they would laugh at me because clearly shows I know nothing about the field and I really don't, not a hypothetical scenario. -
Originally Posted by Sophisticles
Originally Posted by Dellsam -
That Colin guy seems like the real deal.
Also, thank you for proving me right, at least partially.
We usually provide DV-AVI files of 13GB per hour from most video formats. These are much higher quality than the compressed files you would get from a cheap video to USB converter gadget, and are much better suited to editing. In the case of mini dv and Digital8 tapes, these DV-AVI files are a pure lossless copy from the digital tape contents which even retain the original time/date information which some software can access. Additionally I offer MPEG4 files of about 4GB per hour, ideal for playback on most modern TVs as well as portable devices, the extra cost for these smaller files is very minimal. Some professional studio tapes are available as other video file formats including 10-bit YUV (huge file sizes though).
Maybe I'm not that ignorant after all. -
Originally Posted by Sophisticles
-
-
Not really, DV is just what his customer base prefer, he does offer lossless AVI especially since we are talking forensic and valuable. What he means by cheap USB devices is the lossy software that comes with those chinese knockoff devices like easycap, they convert directly into mp4, he actually proved you wrong since you suggested one of those businesses.
Me personally DV is an obsolete codec just like MPEG-2 and most people here in the US don't know what to do with DV anyways, so it will endup converted to a modern lossy codec which incur 2 losses, one during DV conversion from lossless and the other during the conversion from DV to the modern codec.
Native DV and D8 tapes are transferred as such, there is no choice there, but it's up to the customer if he wants raw DV files or have it converted to a modern codec, I've done few D8 and DV tapes and almost all of them wanted HD mp4 container, So stripped DV out into bare AVI, de-interlaced with QTGMC, resized to 1440x1080 and encoded into h.264 4:2:0. -
Hang on, Video99UK says himself he captures into DV "For most domestic formats". He makes no mention of Lossless>MP4 so I assume he's doing DV>MP4, exactly what you're criticising here.
I wouldn't be considering him "best practice" at consumer video conversion. He is appears to be a tech whizz, but using DV as a base for a paid service would ordinarily attract howls of condemnation here.
Anyway, back to topic... -
^^^This, and looking at the same from a slighly different viewpoint, based on the number of the quoted resolution lines of consumer tapes:
Assuming S-VHS has a maximum horizontal resolution of 420 lines gives 420/2=210 black/white cycles (transitions). A PAL scanline duration is 53.333 microseconds. This gives 53.333/210=25.4 microseconds cycle duration or 1/25.4us= 3.94MHz spectral width to represent a resolution of 420 lines. According to Nyquist-Shannon the theoretical minimum sampling frequency must be twice as much, means 2x3.94MHz=7.9MHz. In any practical implementation it must be higher in order to prevent aliasing and ringing. Rec.601 specifies 13.5MHz sampling rate (valid for PAL as well as NTSC) which includes some margin for practical implementation limitations. So for 420 discernible S-VHS lines there is not ample "waste" of bandwidth or digital pixels. Moreover, above consideration applies for "sinusoidal" vertical bars. Lines with sharp (steep, step, trapezoidal etc.) transitions have a wider spectral content and require a correspondingly higher sampling rate to represent (catch) these sharper/steeper transitions properly (means not smoothed/blurred or aliased).
Capturing high quality tapes at lower sampling rates means one would readily risk to loose information which may be on the tapes, apart from a non-standard sampling mess with individual chip manufacturer dependent PARs (PixelAspectRatio) etc. like in the early digitization age.
Edit: This excursion doesn't answer the original question whether lossless is really necessary ...Last edited by Sharc; 5th May 2024 at 10:03.
-
I agree that DV-AVI is certainly obsolete as a distribution format. New computers can play it (if a DV codec is installed) but no other new consumer electronics can. However, even if it isn't lossless, DV-AVI isn't a terrible choice for somebody in the UK who wants to use it as archival storage for their standard-definition interlaced PAL home video. DV is noisier (DCT ringing) and preserves less detail than lossless compression but PAL DV uses 4:2:0 chroma subsampling and consumes less storage (13GB per hour of video).
Ignore list: hello_hello, tried, TechLord, Snoopy329 -
Go back and reread what I suggested, I said Kodak because I thought they were Kodak and figured they would have some fancy equipment that a hobbyist would not have.
And for the record, I am not Chinese but all this talk about "Chinese knockoff" and "Chinese crap" that is used on here is messed up.
China has 1.5 billion people and they manufacture all sorts of things, while I am sure some of the low quality stiff is made in China, I would be surprised if the high quality stuff isn't also made in China.
So can we keep the racial slurs out of this? Low quality stiff can be made anywhere as can high quality stuff.Last edited by sophisticles; 5th May 2024 at 15:11.
-
Chinese knockoffs are chinese brands made by chinese shops to mimic fully functioning products from brand name companies that are also made in china but not by chinese manufacturing entities, have you heard of the chinese iphone? Does that mean the real iphone is not made in china?, That's another area you lack knowledge of.
-
Of course he does, because lossless is a complete waste for VHS capture, and i would argue, for most things.
These people want to act like they are experts, and for the sake of being civil and not causing needless arguing, let's just say they are hobbyists with some equipment that have done some captures and in their mind it justifies their belief that they are experts.
But let's be honest with ourselves, in this thread, and others, they have claimed the following:
That lossless is lossless, there are not different types of lossless. I am not going to call anyone out by name, but anyone that doesn't understand that utvideo 8-but 4:2:2 is not the same as 10-bit 4:4:4 FFV1 should not be in this discussion.
It has been claimed that I am ignorant and I don't know what i don't know, and a person is held up as an expert yet that expert uses something they spent numerous posts denouncing.
They advise to use lossless but apparently RAID to them is something to kill cockroaches, because nowhere do they inform people that if you want to capture lossless you really should be using RAID 0+1.
PDR, who is a very knowledgeable person and may be one of the more knowledgeable in this forum, has contradicted himself. In another thread he pointed out that lossless is only lossless if the NLE treats it as lossless, and as he pointed out, most do not, because they were not designed with ingesting lossless formats. Yet in this thread he has advocated for lossless use and tried to use the example of EXR plates in movie production, failing to address that this applies to Sony CineAlta F65 Camera captures, most digital cameras record to RAW and ProRes simultaneous.
The lossless capture crowd remind me of the people that used to use pirated copies of CCE to perform a 9 pass MPEG-2 encode or use the placebo preset for x264 and x265 or the people that used to take their commercial Blu-Rays and re-encode them to x264 because they "wanted the highest quality".
Or the people people that will deinterlace using QGTMC with the placebo preset.
I how people that chance upon this thread will read everything carefully, maybe experiment on their own and make up their own mind.
And keep in mind that anyone that says that asking "which is the best capture card" or "the best VCR" is proof that the person asking the question does not know what he is doing yet then turns around and claims that people should be following the recommendations of the users on this forum, not realizing the inherent contradiction, may not be the most trustworthy person to take advise from.
With all due respect. -
This is something that people need to answer for themselves.
I have terabytes of footage from various sources converted to various formats and the only thing i have seen lossless useful for is creating huge file sizes and achieving high PSNR scores.
You can't see the difference between lossless and a high quality near lossless format and I can prove it very easily.
Take any source you want and convert it to I frame only AV1 using libaom-av1 + yuv444p12le with CRF 0 and CRF 1.
Are you going to notice the difference?
Only in the file size difference. -
Where is the contradiction ??? Why am I on the "hitlist" . Selective reading on your part
I provided a truly lossless workflow for NLE's too... v210 for 10bit 422 is uncompressed and lossless and gets treated as lossless in Premiere Pro. Same with UYVY for 8bit422. So instead of huffyuv, you use UYVY - it's lossless and treated as YUV . Or instead of Prores you use v210. Hardcore editors used
I provided a truly lossless workflow for up/down sampling YUV<=>RGB conversion too. 32bit float and nearest neighbor up/downsampling . eg.. vapoursynth , EXR export/import
I was pointing out in the other thread that people who use "lossless" captures like huffyuv just assume it's lossless - but it's often not because of mis-handling in programs . There are a lot of "gotchas" for people that don't know the in/outs of programs and colorspaces
Yet in this thread he has advocated for lossless use and tried to use the example of EXR plates in movie production, failing to address that this applies to Sony CineAlta F65 Camera captures, most digital cameras record to RAW and ProRes simultaneous.
Note that I did not advocate lossless for everything - I wrote it depends on the scenario. If your end goal is Youtube, it's not going to make a noticable difference if you used lossless or ProresHQ for capturing
Actually near lossless is great for 99.9% of scenarios. I suggested x264 qp 1 when you need high quality - because the quality is 10-20 db higher then ProresHQ . For the scenarios where ProresHQ is not enough
-
quote by op:
PDR, who is a very knowledgeable person and may be one of the more knowledgeable in this forum, has contradicted himself. In another thread he pointed out that lossless is only lossless if the NLE treats it as lossless, and as he pointed out, most do not, because they were not designed with ingesting lossless formats.
you and many others that panic , shouting save yourselves, flee! But, it is all because of illegal levels. If you have legal levels fixed, it is just YUV to RGB and back errors, which can be greatly diminished by using floating point in Vegas for example, heck, it is SD only. So much fuss in that thread or here for basically nothing, even after it was brought up again and again. Just because of bloody level legalizing, which is very known to Vegas user who visits forums. Those users know what to do with particular footage, or even type of camcorder, what to do set things right. They fix the footage. The others, using a "recommended" NLE, don't do anything and watch blow up colors anyway on their screen when YUV to RGB goes on monitor and everything above 235 is gone anyway.
Similar Threads
-
Converting from Lossless-Uncompressed to Lossless-Whatever
By Marvolo in forum Video ConversionReplies: 8Last Post: 8th Feb 2024, 13:20 -
Is Avidemux Lossless?
By Jay123210599 in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 3Last Post: 28th Oct 2023, 17:46 -
lossless 4.2.0 video to lossless 4.2.2 - any issues?
By spicediver10191 in forum Video ConversionReplies: 21Last Post: 10th Jun 2023, 01:00 -
Quick sanity check: Lossless to lossless encoding HuffYUV to UTVideo
By nicholasserra in forum Video ConversionReplies: 2Last Post: 20th Aug 2020, 11:41 -
FFMPEG - hevc_nvenc & h264_nvenc lossless presets not truly lossless?
By AnomalyDetected in forum Video ConversionReplies: 5Last Post: 27th Oct 2019, 02:24