Problems Digitizing VHS Cassettes...

[The_Doman]

So guys, it seems that perhaps the best way for me to do this would be to create one of the following chains:

Regular VCR + Canon Vixia HV30 into FW-equipped computer and iMovie or Premiere;

or...

Regular VCR + [one of those DVD recorders mentioned in this thread] into FW-equipped computer and iMovie or Premiere.

Is this correct, or did I miss something? (The thread’s become a bit overwhelming at this point, so I may have glossed over something important.)

There is of course also the option:
Regular VCR + [one of those DVD recorders mentioned in this thread] and a decent USB capture device.
Assuming there is a good working USB capture solution/chain on the MAC

[rgr]

The waviness at the top of the screen I just took to be an artifact of the VHS medium, and therefore was unavoidable (some of my tapes have that, and some do not). This can be prevented??

Of course, that's exactly what TBC does.

Okay, understood. Unfortunately, as you say, this is still not guaranteed since I will not be integrating a dedicated device equipped with TBC. I’ll only be increasing my odds by introducing some digital links into the chain.

D8 cameras have TBC. Do yours have it and if it works good you need to check or search the internet.
The easiest way would be to look for someone who has FireWire, rip a snippet of that tape you have, and check it out.

If the result is OK, then you have the problem out of your head.
If the result is bad and waviness still occur, you need a passthrough device with TBC (Panasonic DMR-EH5x), between the VCR and the D8 camera. Or buy a grabber and use it instead of a camera.

[rgr]

1. They are there. And you may need to de-block the DV video before processing.

Where do you see the need for de-block (attachment)?

3. It is the opposite, because 4:2:0 reduces color resolution both horizontally and vertically (by half in both directions).
This can be problematic for formats that already have little color information such as VHS and S-VHS, as the chrominance is further reduced. Pratically 4:2:0 is taking away color from a signal that already has very little of it causing blurred colored edges, color bleeding, aliasing, loss of fine saturation and banding.
Of course with poor sources the difference is minimal, but for nice VHS and S-VHS is not so small.

1. You capture in YUV420, encode in YUV420 and see a problem somewhere? Strange, because with luma 16-235 on the input and output it doesn't bother you The human eye is more sensitive to luma than chroma.
2. More damage than the YUV420 on the input is done by JVC with his "temporal smoothing".

[lollo]

You gave you a fishing rod, all you had to do was think, you couldn't do it.

Sure!

Of course the 16-255 range is better because it contains more luma levels.

The D8 camera is not a grabber - there will be no holes in the graph, the entire range will be filled.

The gaps and spikes in the histogram is another story, charlatan, and not all grabbers feature that.

The same as the level above will be capturing in 10-bit depth.

Tell me now that you capture in 4:2:0, which is a loss, but in 10 bits, which is completely useless.

The basics, rgr, the basics!

The basics, and you still don't understand.

I have a different opinion about who is not understanding, but I do not care at all.

[lollo]

Where do you see the need for de-block (attachment)?

Do you expect me to loose time checking your videos? DV introduces blocks by default and by the law of physics and maths; if there is a sample with minimal artifacts is not the rule (the same as per your crap experiment).

1. You capture in YUV420, code in YUV420 and see a problem somewhere? Strange, because with luma 16-235 on the input and output it doesn't bother you The human eye is more sensitive to luma than chroma

We keep the luma and the chroma as there are on tape. There is not need to deteriorate chroma more.
The rest about levels and sensitivity is absolutely out of contest.

2. More damage than the YUV420 on the input is done by JVC with his "temporal smoothing".

That's the last of your bullshit.

While a temporal noise reduction is present, is not worst than what youobtain with a temporal denoiser avisynth filter with high temporal radius. If the starting point is cleaner, there is less need to use strong settings. And the final result is equivalent.

JVCs are wonderful machines (not all of them of course). Once more look to real examples of mine comparing a signal dumped directly from a satellite stream and its brother who has been recorded by a JVC on a tape and then captured. No difference, which validate the full chain!

[rgr]

Of course the 16-255 range is better because it contains more luma levels.

Heh, it's supposed to be simple subtraction, but you couldn't do it

[lollo]

Of course the 16-255 range is better because it contains more luma levels.

Heh, it's supposed to be simple subtraction, but you couldn't do it

It is not a question of subtraction, but of impact

To OP: I apologize for this off topic, but this charlatan needed to be corrected. My last post on this thread, I promise.

[rgr]

Where do you see the need for de-block (attachment)?

Do you expect me to loose time checking your videos? DV introduces blocks by default and by the law of physics and maths; if there is a sample with minimal artifacts is not the rule (the same as per your crap experiment).

You could use some for training, because you're already pushing harsh nonsense, Dr. Professor of Theory
Civil courage a little, show these blocks.

We keep the luma and the chroma as there are on tape.

Dr. Associate Professor of Theory, there are no bytes on the tape, there are volts
It's such an analog monster! The more precisely you sample it, the better the reproduction you'll get.

2. More damage than the YUV420 on the input is done by JVC with his "temporal smoothing".

That's the last of your bullshit.

While a temporal noise reduction is present, is not worst than what youobtain with a temporal denoiser avisynth filter with high temporal radius. If the starting point is cleaner, there is less need to use strong settings. And the final result is equivalent.

Well, I see

JVCs are wonderful machines (not all of them of course)

The frame from JVC is the one below...
Even the YUV444P16 wouldn't help here, but the good news is that no YUV will hurt more...

[Alwyn]

So guys, it seems that perhaps the best way for me to do this would be to create one of the following chains:

Regular VCR + Canon Vixia HV30 into FW-equipped computer and iMovie or Premiere;

or...

Regular VCR + [one of those DVD recorders mentioned in this thread] into FW-equipped computer and iMovie or Premiere.

Is this correct, or did I miss something? (The thread’s become a bit overwhelming at this point, so I may have glossed over something important.)

You need that DVD recorder before your HV30 (the HV30 does not do any stabilising according to my test).

For a better result, instead of American (4.1.1 colour) Firewire, go the lossless route, capture with a USB digitiser such as the GV-USB2, USB-Live2 or 710-USB (although the 710 doesn't work on Win 10 or 11 here). Then edit your files with Premiere (what format AVIs does it accept?). The lossless process is more complex than the DV route.

So, get your hands on a suggested DVD recorder, do a HV30 capture and assess. Looks good? Stick with that. Not happy, or feeling a bit nerdy, move up to the lossless route.

[Sharc]

JVCs are wonderful machines (not all of them of course).

Well, my sturdy JVC HR-S9500 smoothes the picture even when disabling all of its internal filters (which can be disabled by the user), and some of the details (like fine vertical structures) cannot be recovered in post. For this reason I prefer my Pana NV-HS860 for capturing. It captures more details (provided these are on the tape) and more noise, but the details are preserved after denoising in post.
It may be more prominent for home videos than for preprocessed broadcast or commercial tape material though.
Apologies for adding to the off-topic stuff

[lollo]

In my case is the opposite because the JVC is better than the Panasonic, and I posted a comparison in the forum some time ago. Cannot find it now.

Sorry, re-end of the off-topic