VHS vcr with scart/svideo out

:::Jerry:::: wrote:
So in effect they are outputting a composite signal as s-video, the
OP could but a separate box of trick (to adjust colour balance and
re-sync the time-base etc.) far cheaper than a high end VCR. I still
suspect that the real problem is in the way the OP is digitising the
video stream to his computer.

Neither VHS nor S-VHS store a "composite" signal. In the colour under
recording method used by both, the chroma and luma are stored
separately on tape.

However, with VHS the bandwidth of both signals is comparatively low.
This means that the high frequency luminance information (which would
normally overlap with the chroma information in a composite signal) is
absent, therefore in theory you don't lose anything by outputting both
luma and chroma together as composite; the two can be perfectly
separated again by a simple filter.

In practice, the S-video inputs of some capture cards still look
better, either because they _are_ better, or because the filtering on
the composite input is bad, or not suitable/optimal for VHS.

The Panasonic NV-SV121EB-S VCR includes a TBC and S-video output (and
is an S-VHS machine). I think it's your only choice. Note that the TBC
doesn't _always_ help - I've seen it make things worse with some
(exceptional) tapes.

There are many other ways of improving the "look" of VHS material, but
a half-decent capture must be the starting point. You can feed the
above VCR into a good stand-alone DVD recorder (rip the result into a
PC if you want) or a good capture card.

Then you can post-process to your heart's content. There are some
useful AVIsynth filters - see the doom9 forums...

http://forum.doom9.org/

....especially the "capturing video" and "AVIsynth usage" sections.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
David.

wrote in message
oups.com...
snip

There are many other ways of improving the "look" of VHS material,
but
a half-decent capture must be the starting point. You can feed the
above VCR into a good stand-alone DVD recorder (rip the result into
a
PC if you want) or a good capture card.

I would not record to a DVD (MPEG/VOB) and then attempt to adjust
things as it will mean rendering (MPEG suffers from a sort of
generational lost when re-rendering), better to convert / import as
either a AVI or DV codec onto a computer and do any adjustments
(including editing etc) and final burning to a DVD on the computer.


Then you can post-process to your heart's content. There are some
useful AVIsynth filters - see the doom9 forums...

http://forum.doom9.org/

...especially the "capturing video" and "AVIsynth usage" sections.


AVIsynth is very good but a nightmare to use if you're not used to
working with command line type commands, software such a VirtualDub
and TMPGEn are far more user friendly...

:::Jerry:::: wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
snip

There are many other ways of improving the "look" of VHS material,
but
a half-decent capture must be the starting point. You can feed the
above VCR into a good stand-alone DVD recorder (rip the result into
a
PC if you want) or a good capture card.

I would not record to a DVD (MPEG/VOB) and then attempt to adjust
things as it will mean rendering (MPEG suffers from a sort of
generational lost when re-rendering)

I know. I agree a good capture card should be better than a good DVD
recorder if you're intending to "improve" the footage in a PC.

However, I mentioned the DVD recorder route because no one else had.
Given the OP, it's worth a try: I've seen stand-alone DVD recorders
that are perfectly happy to copy footage which will crash some PC
capture cards! In other situations, it can be the lesser of two evils,
depending on what you want to do with the content, and what the
alternative equipment is. Remember that if you just want to edit,
that's easy with MPEG-2 at I-frames without any re-encoding. It's even
possible to make frame-accurate edits with a tiny bit of re-encoding.

better to convert / import as
either a AVI or DV codec onto a computer and do any adjustments
(including editing etc) and final burning to a DVD on the computer.

It can be better, but depending on the capture card, it could be far
worse than a good stand-alone DVD recorder. Plus DV isn't lossless
either. Probably more than good enough for VHS - but so is high bitrate
MPEG-2.

If you want to archive your old VHS home movies in full, and produce a
separate useful edit of them, then VHSDVD-R, DVD-RPC, edit, PCDVD-R
is a perfectly sensible work flow, potentially with no re-encoding.

If you want to do more, or if you have a good capture card, then
straight into a PC is the way to go. Mind you - that requires the time
to "do more" - if you haven't got that time right now, then a stand
along DVD recorder comes into its own again - you're hardly going to
keep DV format AVIs hanging around for years, so no point creating them
in the first place.

Cheers,
David.

wrote in message
oups.com...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
snip

There are many other ways of improving the "look" of VHS
material,
but
a half-decent capture must be the starting point. You can feed
the
above VCR into a good stand-alone DVD recorder (rip the result
into
a
PC if you want) or a good capture card.

I would not record to a DVD (MPEG/VOB) and then attempt to adjust
things as it will mean rendering (MPEG suffers from a sort of
generational lost when re-rendering)

I know. I agree a good capture card should be better than a good
DVD
recorder if you're intending to "improve" the footage in a PC.

However, I mentioned the DVD recorder route because no one else
had.
Given the OP, it's worth a try: I've seen stand-alone DVD recorders
that are perfectly happy to copy footage which will crash some PC
capture cards! In other situations, it can be the lesser of two
evils,
depending on what you want to do with the content, and what the
alternative equipment is. Remember that if you just want to edit,
that's easy with MPEG-2 at I-frames without any re-encoding. It's
even
possible to make frame-accurate edits with a tiny bit of
re-encoding.

You are correct in theory, in practise most edits will require a
complete decompress and recompression of the data, which is where the
losses occur.


better to convert / import as
either a AVI or DV codec onto a computer and do any adjustments
(including editing etc) and final burning to a DVD on the
computer.

It can be better, but depending on the capture card, it could be
far
worse than a good stand-alone DVD recorder.

Well, yes, hence why I asked the OP what he was using - the trouble
is, many people buy those 50 quid USB converters and then wonder why
the results are crap - pay peanuts expect monkeys...

Plus DV isn't lossless
either. Probably more than good enough for VHS - but so is high
bitrate
MPEG-2.

Can you cite a reference to that effect, AIUI DV is loss-less and is
as near non lousy as makes no difference (in a non broadcast
environment), compression is done in the camera or conversion and
there is no decompression or recompression during editing or
rendering of DV - that is why DV requires encoding before output to
DVD for example.


If you want to archive your old VHS home movies in full, and
produce a
separate useful edit of them, then VHSDVD-R, DVD-RPC, edit,
PCDVD-R
is a perfectly sensible work flow, potentially with no re-encoding.
snip

********, see above, you will be decompressing and recompressing
which is *not* non-lousy.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
reenews.net...

snip

You are correct in theory, in practise most edits will require a
complete decompress and recompression of the data, which is where
the
losses occur.


For decompress and recompression read decoding and re-encoding.

:::Jerry:::: wrote:
However, I mentioned the DVD recorder route because no one else
had.
Given the OP, it's worth a try: I've seen stand-alone DVD recorders
that are perfectly happy to copy footage which will crash some PC
capture cards! In other situations, it can be the lesser of two
evils,
depending on what you want to do with the content, and what the
alternative equipment is. Remember that if you just want to edit,
that's easy with MPEG-2 at I-frames without any re-encoding. It's
even
possible to make frame-accurate edits with a tiny bit of
re-encoding.

You are correct in theory, in practise most edits will require a
complete decompress and recompression of the data, which is where the
losses occur.

I-Frame only mpeg

Can you have variable length GOPs in mpeg2?

Plus DV isn't lossless
either. Probably more than good enough for VHS - but so is high
bitrate
MPEG-2.

Can you cite a reference to that effect, AIUI DV is loss-less and is
as near non lousy as makes no difference (in a non broadcast
environment),

25Mbit DV is certainly good enough for home use (especially when the
source is VHS), however it is lossy, at 576 lines (as the half lines in
pal are entirely captured), 768 samples (1:1 pixel ratio for a 4:3
screen), 25 frames per second (deinterlace done at capture), and 24
bits per pixel (8 bit per colour, RGB), you get 265 MBit per second. DV
does 4:2:0 compression and intraframe compression (but no interframe
(temporal) compression), leaving a 25Mbit video component.

"Uncompressed" video is a higher rate than SDI (which does 4:2:2
compression, halving the chroma bandwidth), and even then you're
limited to 10 bits of y/cr/cb per pixel, so there's still information
loss.

compression is done in the camera or conversion and
there is no decompression or recompression during editing or
rendering of DV - that is why DV requires encoding before output to
DVD for example.

Yes, as it's i-frame only. As long as you can read the AVI header you
can easilly chop and change frames arround.

If you want to archive your old VHS home movies in full, and
produce a
separate useful edit of them, then VHSDVD-R, DVD-RPC, edit,
PCDVD-R
is a perfectly sensible work flow, potentially with no re-encoding.
snip

********, see above, you will be decompressing and recompressing
which is *not* non-lousy.

Depends exactly what you're doing. If you cut only on iframes (which
are about every half second, so possible in many situations) then there
*should* be no recompression. If you don't cut on iframes, but there
are few cuts, and your software can cope with variable length GOP, (I
think the DVD standard can), you'll only suffer from a few frames-worth
of loss, It will only be one generation, and will be perfectly
acceptable for home use. Even reencoding the entire movie once won't be
the end of the world.

If you want to use lots of effects and transistions you're probably
better starting with DV, but MPEG should still work fairly well.

It's certainly easier that way too, which is what you want for home
editing. There's no need to tie up your computer capturing lots of
video, and you can edit down clips from sources at your leisure.

Paul Weaver wrote:
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
Can you cite a reference to that effect, AIUI DV is loss-less and is
as near non lousy as makes no difference (in a non broadcast
environment),

25Mbit DV is certainly good enough for home use (especially when the
source is VHS), however it is lossy, at 576 lines (as the half lines in
pal are entirely captured), 768 samples (1:1 pixel ratio for a 4:3
screen), 25 frames per second (deinterlace done at capture), and 24
bits per pixel (8 bit per colour, RGB), you get 265 MBit per second. DV
does 4:2:0 compression and intraframe compression (but no interframe
(temporal) compression), leaving a 25Mbit video component.

Exactly.

I'd also add that if you encode certain "difficult" clips into DV
(which is possible in a PC environment) you get the kind of visible
problems that you'd expect on such content with 10:1 DCT compression.
No one would claim that JPEG at 10:1 would always "as near non lousy as
makes no difference", so it's daft to claim that DV will be.

You're not going to notice this from VHS.

compression is done in the camera or conversion and
there is no decompression or recompression during editing or
rendering of DV - that is why DV requires encoding before output to
DVD for example.

Yes, as it's i-frame only. As long as you can read the AVI header you
can easilly chop and change frames arround.

Hang on a second - of course you _can_ edit (cut/copy/paste) DV without
loss, but that's not to say that most video editing packages do it this
way.

When you talk about "rendering", if that includes anything beyond hard
edits, then it must be re-encoded.

If you want to archive your old VHS home movies in full, and
produce a
separate useful edit of them, then VHSDVD-R, DVD-RPC, edit,
PCDVD-R
is a perfectly sensible work flow, potentially with no re-encoding.
snip

********, see above, you will be decompressing and recompressing
which is *not* non-lousy.

No you will not. You will be editing the MPEG-2 bitstream directly
without any re-encoding.

TMPGenc (which _you_ mentioned) includes a clunky MPEG-2 editor that
cuts on I-frames without any re-encoding. It's really crappy software,
but it does work and is lossless.

VideoReDo will happily cut on _any_ frame, and the only re-encoding
will be between I-frames - typically less than half a second. This is
rather good software for the job.

The idea that re-encoding half a second of 8Mbps MPEG-2 video is
detectable (never mind being a serious quality issue) when you are
encoding VHS is quite laughable!

Depends exactly what you're doing. If you cut only on iframes (which
are about every half second, so possible in many situations) then there
*should* be no recompression. If you don't cut on iframes, but there
are few cuts, and your software can cope with variable length GOP, (I
think the DVD standard can), you'll only suffer from a few frames-worth
of loss, It will only be one generation, and will be perfectly
acceptable for home use.

The DVD and DVB standards only specify the maximum GOP length. Most
(not all) encoding is fixed GOP length, but there's no necessity to
maintain this. That's how VideoReDo works: you get some shorter and
longer GOPs at the edit points. Even cleverer is the way it keeps the
audio in sync, because the audio and video frame boundaries are
different. I _think_ it must keep track of whether the audio has moved
slightly ahead or behind, and compensate where possible at each edit;
otherwise the audio would drift noticeably out of sync after several
edits.

Even reencoding the entire movie once won't be
the end of the world.

If you want to use lots of effects and transistions you're probably
better starting with DV, but MPEG should still work fairly well.

True (again!). The point which I didn't quite dare make is that DV is
only a little better than well encoded high bitrate MPEG-2 as a source.

It's certainly easier that way too, which is what you want for home
editing. There's no need to tie up your computer capturing lots of
video, and you can edit down clips from sources at your leisure.

Yes. And if you're _just_ editing, rather than being "more lossy" it's
"less lossy" - there is exactly one encode (VHSMPEG-2) rather than two
or three (VHSDV(DV)MPEG-2).

Cheers,
David.

wrote in message
ups.com...
snip

No you will not. You will be editing the MPEG-2 bitstream directly
without any re-encoding.

TMPGenc (which _you_ mentioned) includes a clunky MPEG-2 editor
that
cuts on I-frames without any re-encoding. It's really crappy
software,
but it does work and is lossless.


Well if all one wants to do is 'crash edit' then that can be done
with the pause button on the DVD recorder whilst recording!

If you want to ad a wipe, fade or title you will need to re render,
that is lousy in the MEPG format.

:::Jerry:::: wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
snip

No you will not. You will be editing the MPEG-2 bitstream directly
without any re-encoding.

TMPGenc (which _you_ mentioned) includes a clunky MPEG-2 editor
that
cuts on I-frames without any re-encoding. It's really crappy
software,
but it does work and is lossless.

Well if all one wants to do is 'crash edit' then that can be done
with the pause button on the DVD recorder whilst recording!

You don't seem to appreciate that people might want to copy the stuff
_now_ and edit it _later_.

As for suggesting that editing content on-the-fly by hitting the pause
button when writing to a write-once media is comparable to
frame-accurate off-line editing... you'd say anything to try to prove
that you're right for once!

If you want to ad a wipe, fade or title you will need to re render,
that is lousy in the MEPG format.

Do you mean "lousy" or "lossy"?!

I doubt very much it's "lousy".

If you mean lossy, the same is true with the DV format!

Cheers,
David.

wrote in message
ups.com...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
snip

No you will not. You will be editing the MPEG-2 bitstream
directly
without any re-encoding.

TMPGenc (which _you_ mentioned) includes a clunky MPEG-2 editor
that
cuts on I-frames without any re-encoding. It's really crappy
software,
but it does work and is lossless.

Well if all one wants to do is 'crash edit' then that can be done
with the pause button on the DVD recorder whilst recording!

You don't seem to appreciate that people might want to copy the
stuff
_now_ and edit it _later_.

Oh yes I do, what I was suggesting was that your suggestion was no
better than crash editing as you are limiting yourself to cuts as the
last thing you will want to do is re render and encode the MPG source
data.


As for suggesting that editing content on-the-fly by hitting the
pause
button when writing to a write-once media is comparable to
frame-accurate off-line editing... you'd say anything to try to
prove
that you're right for once!

I'm advocating no such thing, I'm advocating digitising to a non
lousy format, editing, encoding and then burning to DVD - all on the
computer. You OTOH seem to be advocating the use of a lousy format,
the next worst way of 'editing' [1] from crash editing and then
probably re rendering of a lousy format!

Ask yourself what the differences between a TIFF file and a JPEG,
they both share similarities with lousy and non lousy digital video
files.


If you want to ad a wipe, fade or title you will need to re
render,
that is lousy in the MEPG format.

Do you mean "lousy" or "lossy"?!

I doubt very much it's "lousy".

If you mean lossy, the same is true with the DV format!


You really are clueless...