Going from VHS to DVD is a waste of time!!!!!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> Funny thing was, MPEG Layer 3 was originally defined to offer
> transparent audio quality at ISDN rates (64Kb/s mono, 128kb/s stereo),
> for use in broadcasting. It did that job better than anything that
> came before, no one complained. We had to get the geeks involved for
> that.

There's some in every crowd.

> >Almost none of the "golden ear" crowd participated, not surprisingly.
>
> Some of those folks have issues. Some aren't really golden ears, but
> got that kind of reputation, and hey, if you're not a golden ears guy
> yourself, how do you know they're not wrong? Especially in the
> "Audiophile" world, where most of the audio quality stuff is a little
> science mized with heapin' helpin's of mythology, bad science, snake
> oil salesmen, and "emperor's new clothes" purchase decisions. They
> don't like too much actual reality, like objective blind tests, to be
> introduced into that melee.

That's what this test provided, a totally blind comparison. It's also
why a lot of the "golden ears" crowd didn't participate.

> You probably have a few legit guys, too, who (like me, for example),
> cannot hear as well as we could, say, back in our 20's. I still think
> my ears work very well, I hear things other folks don't, but I'm not
> making a living on 'em. And I'm honestly not sure I could pull 320's
> from 128's. Maybe on my best sound system, on music I know very well.

I did several blind A/B tests on music that I knew, on my system, and I
couldn't. But then again, I'm an over 40 old fart so who knows what a 20
year old could hear. It was still astounding that only one guy could
tell the difference. And there was speculation at the time that he used
Sound Forge or CEP to do a frequency analysis to see what the high
frequency roll off was to identify the encoder. I think the Xing
encoders rolled off at 15 mHz while the FhG encoders were a little
higher than that. But there was no doubt, he could differentiate between
a 160 and a 320, regardless of the encoder.

> But in general? Now, if you're talkin' WMAs, that's another story --
> just listen for the pre-echos. That stuff gives you fatigue; lots of
> people will pick those out easily.

I've been surprised at the quality of WMV's, really surprised. I've
never even listened to WMA's before, didn't seem to offer any
advantages.

> >I've got a lot of irreplaceable family footage on 8mm and VHS tape
that
> >I'm just getting ready to convert. Am I expecting perfection? Not at
> >all. But I'll feel a hell of a lot better, and will have a chance of
> >actually viewing the footage, in 10 years when I've got them archived
on
> >DVD rather than a vhs tape.
>
> Another thing to consider -- are you doing any editing? If you're
> planning to edit your home video, you'll find it easy to bring
> first-generation video into digital, edit there, and produce a DVD
> that's dramatically better than any basic roll-edit to VHS, in both

The plan is to get a VCR with a TBC, capture the output with my AIW card
to uncompressed AVI, edit with PP then encode to DVD format. Something
tells me it won't be that easy. <g>
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Leonid Makarovsky" <venom@cs.bu.edu> wrote in message
news:c4npl6$rrj$1@news3.bu.edu...
> FLY135 <FLY_135(@hot not not)notmail.com> wrote:
> : Oh, so you have one? And how much is your guarantee worth?
>
> Someone gave me bunch of DVDs he recorded on high end DVD recorder from
> Hi8 or betamax. These were hockey games. The quality was indeed good, but
if
> one pays close attention he/she can see some blockiness during fast
motion.

Well my original answer was tailored to your first post. I'm not trying to
say that the LiteOn gives the highest possible quality. I've only used it
so far to record TV shows and am very impressed with the lack of artifacts.
I haven't even used the highest quality 1 hour mode. The two hour mode is
very clean. Even the 4 hour mode is relatively clean although the softening
of the image through filtering is very apparent. If you apply a critical
eye I'm sure that better results could be achieved with a good capture card
and Tmpgenc. But I seriously doubt that someone who simply wants to archive
VHS tapes without any fuss would be disappointed.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Dave Haynie <dhaynie@jersey.net> wrote:
:> But if you compress the lossless Huffyuv codec 10 times, how can
:>you not lose the information?

: What part of "lossless" isn't getting through? Try it with ZIP
: sometime... no loss is no loss is no loss, even if you do it 1000
: times.

I'm not talking about the loss of information when you capture in Huffyuv.
What I'm saying is a reallife example. I captured the VHS 2 hours long in
Huffyuv yesterday. My file was 50GB. I'm going to be splitting it into 2 DVD-Rs
to achieve the highest quality. So my resulting MPEG-2 will be 8GB. That's
6 times as little as original. And you're saying comparing to original HUFFYUV
AVI file, MPEG-2 will be without information loss? I don't think so.

--Leonid
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Thank you for that reply. I could still do the editing on a PC and make it
out to DV tape and the use a standalone recorder I suppose but with no menus
or can you put menus of some sort on? But which recorder?!! 🙂

Margaret

Remove giggling if replying by email
"Me" <me@me.com> wrote in message news:1081080705.999396@sj-nntpcache-5...
> Looks like your question did not get answered:
> If you want to copy only you can just buy a standalone DVD Recorder. If
you
> want to do any editing or make nice menus, etc., buy a burner for your PC
> and some easy to use editing/authoring software such as Ulead. You should
be
> able to copy from VHS to the PC by going through the Digital Camacorder in
> passthrough. I do this all the time and can't tell any difference between
> the original VHS and the new DVD. Maybe my eyes arn't as discreminating as
> some though.
> One reason for copying VHS to DVD is to preserve. DVD has a much longer
life
> that VHS. Something like 100 years vs. 7 years if I'm not mistaken. I also
> enjoy being able to set up chapters/menu buttons and go directly to a
seen.
>
> "Margaret Willmer" <margaret@gigglingwillmer.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:c4jdq0$7le$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > Interesting discussion. I am beginning to think about converting some
of
> my
> > most precious VHS tapes. As a start should I copy them to MiniDV maybe
> via
> > a bit of editing on the PC and keep a copy on DV tape? I don't have a
DVD
> > writer yet. That's another consideration - do I buy a burner for the PC
> or
> > an under TV recorder? All these things to addle the brain!!
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Margaret
> >
> > Remove giggling if replying by email
> > "Richard Ragon" <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote in message
> > news:QP7bc.12134809$Id.2029878@news.easynews.com...
> > > Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
> > > > Going from VHS to DVD is a waste of time! I just recently realized
it.
> > Just like many of you,
> > > > I'd spend hours and days trying to convert some VHS footage to DVD.
> But
> > the end result
> > > > was always worse than original, no matter what you'd do. The idea is
> to
> > have the end result
> > > > identical to source. It will never happen. Why? Just think about it:
> > first you digitize the video.
> > > > When you digitize the video, there's a certain degree of
degradation.
> > Then whatever codec
> > > > you use Huffyuv or DV would compress your footage. And then you
> further
> > compress it
> > > > to DVD compliant MPEG 2 file. Now the most interesting thing is when
> you
> > have your DVD
> > > > ready. You play your DVD and you convert the digital signal *BACK*
to
> > analog to display
> > > > on TV. So basically what you have is
> > Analog->Digital->Compression->Compression->Analog.
> > > > And this is just as some claim to preserve a footage 'cause VHS
> > deteriorates. But VHS only
> > > > deteriorates when you use it. When you just keep them in cool
storage,
> > nothing will happen
> > > > to them. So I found a good solution. Just copy VHS to another VHS or
> > S-VHS. You have the
> > > > master copy which you store in your storage. To playback just use
the
> > 1st generation copy. Yes
> > > > there's a quality loss, but it is a tiny one. You don't go
> > analog->digital->analog. You just go
> > > > analog->analog. The results are much better. I don't know about you,
> but
> > I'm off DVDR market.
> > > >
> > > > --Leonid
> > >
> > > All good points Leonid,
> > >
> > > There's an old saying, "Garbage in, Garbage out". However, there's
some
> > > trouble with your theories.
> > >
> > > 1) Yes you digitize it, but you'll get an exact copy of how it plays
> > > right this minute. And yes that will be about as good the original
> > > copy.. However, I personally have a Canopus-300 which actually cleans
up
> > > some of the shortcomings of the video signal, plus once you digitize
> > > your footage, and can run a few filters and a little tweaking on color
> > > corrections, and you can actually end up with a better copy of that
> > > footage. I capture with a very high data rate (not DV) in a near
> > > uncompressed format. The losses from this are indistinguishable to
the
> > > human eye, if any.
> > >
> > > 2) I don't know if you've been to the local Best Buy lately, but it's
> > > getting more and more difficult to find a single VHS tape player these
> > > days.. At the current rate the VHS player will go the rate of the
> > > turntable by next year. So while yes, you might have that perfect
copy
> > > of the Master tape, you'll not find a way to every play it again in a
> > > few short years.
> > >
> > > 3) In another theory, A final step of outputting to an analog TV will
> > > also be a thing of the past, as we look forward to HDTV. So your
theory
> > > here is also a moot point too.
> > >
> > > But, yes.. True that the original would have been much better off
going
> > > straight to digital DV, but I think the whole point is not to try to
fix
> > > what was done in some kind of remaster, but more like to create
> > > something that will allow you be able to play it at all years down the
> > line.
> > >
> > > -Richard
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <1081080705.999396@sj-nntpcache-5>, me@me.com
says...
> Looks like your question did not get answered:
> If you want to copy only you can just buy a standalone DVD Recorder. If you
> want to do any editing or make nice menus, etc., buy a burner for your PC
> and some easy to use editing/authoring software such as Ulead. You should be
> able to copy from VHS to the PC by going through the Digital Camacorder in
> passthrough. I do this all the time and can't tell any difference between
> the original VHS and the new DVD. Maybe my eyes arn't as discreminating as
> some though.

Get some good test footage... close up pictures of
waves, ripples in the water. For example, shoot some
footage of ducks swimming in a large pond with moderate
ripples reflecting the blue sky. The brownian(?) motion
of the ripples will give an MPEG2 encoder fits.
Switching to a higher motion search precision and/or
giving it a higher bitrate to work with can minimize the
problems.

Pictures of flames might also be good test?

Once you learn to spot the scenes that will likely cause
problems, you'll start picking up on the MPEG2 flaws in
other situations.

> One reason for copying VHS to DVD is to preserve. DVD has a much longer life
> that VHS. Something like 100 years vs. 7 years if I'm not mistaken. I also
> enjoy being able to set up chapters/menu buttons and go directly to a seen.
>

As long as you copy the DVD to new media prior to it
failing. (And it will fail after as short as a few
years, depending on environment / handling / media
quality / burn quality.) Once the DVD has unrecoverable
errors, you're pretty much sunk unless another DVD
reader is less sensitive to the scratches or weak dyes.

(Which is why I recommended adding PAR2 data earlier, to
give you a window of recoverability between when the
disc starts giving unrecoverable errors and when you can
no longer recover the data at all.)
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 08:13:01 -0400, "Me" <me@me.com> wrote:

>You should be
>able to copy from VHS to the PC by going through the Digital Camacorder in
>passthrough. I do this all the time and can't tell any difference between
>the original VHS and the new DVD.

You are luckier. I can tell the difference 🙁

>One reason for copying VHS to DVD is to preserve. DVD has a much longer life
>that VHS. Something like 100 years vs. 7 years if I'm not mistaken.

I would not rely on that at all. No DVD disc has resisted for 100
years to prove it. But you can clone a DVD till eternity, with no loss
-quite the contrary of any analog thing.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I don't know about the stanalone resorders. I just like to jazz up home
videos of the kids and I do it all on PC. Strated by copying all of my VHS-C
to DVD and then got a digital camcorder. I suspect (but don't know) that you
will spend a lot more money to do this with a standalone DVD recorder. The
cheapest I've seen them is $300. If your video card has S-Video output you
might be able to burn directly from PC. Otherwise they usually have 1394
input so you can burn from DV. I don't know how you would do menus in that
case but there might be a way. Maybe someone on the forum has done this and
can comment.
Good DVD recorders for PCs are pretty cheap at under $150. That, a 1394
card, and a VHS player serve me fine. As Toshi pointed out there are times
you can see a degradation of quality. I haven't noticed any but I should
have clarified that I was speaking of typical home movie use.

"Margaret Willmer" <margaret@gigglingwillmer.org.uk> wrote in message
news:c4p9jo$68q$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Thank you for that reply. I could still do the editing on a PC and make
it
> out to DV tape and the use a standalone recorder I suppose but with no
menus
> or can you put menus of some sort on? But which recorder?!! 🙂
>
> Margaret
>
> Remove giggling if replying by email
> "Me" <me@me.com> wrote in message news:1081080705.999396@sj-nntpcache-5...
> > Looks like your question did not get answered:
> > If you want to copy only you can just buy a standalone DVD Recorder. If
> you
> > want to do any editing or make nice menus, etc., buy a burner for your
PC
> > and some easy to use editing/authoring software such as Ulead. You
should
> be
> > able to copy from VHS to the PC by going through the Digital Camacorder
in
> > passthrough. I do this all the time and can't tell any difference
between
> > the original VHS and the new DVD. Maybe my eyes arn't as discreminating
as
> > some though.
> > One reason for copying VHS to DVD is to preserve. DVD has a much longer
> life
> > that VHS. Something like 100 years vs. 7 years if I'm not mistaken. I
also
> > enjoy being able to set up chapters/menu buttons and go directly to a
> seen.
> >
> > "Margaret Willmer" <margaret@gigglingwillmer.org.uk> wrote in message
> > news:c4jdq0$7le$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > > Interesting discussion. I am beginning to think about converting some
> of
> > my
> > > most precious VHS tapes. As a start should I copy them to MiniDV
maybe
> > via
> > > a bit of editing on the PC and keep a copy on DV tape? I don't have a
> DVD
> > > writer yet. That's another consideration - do I buy a burner for the
PC
> > or
> > > an under TV recorder? All these things to addle the brain!!
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Margaret
> > >
> > > Remove giggling if replying by email
> > > "Richard Ragon" <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote in message
> > > news:QP7bc.12134809$Id.2029878@news.easynews.com...
> > > > Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
> > > > > Going from VHS to DVD is a waste of time! I just recently realized
> it.
> > > Just like many of you,
> > > > > I'd spend hours and days trying to convert some VHS footage to
DVD.
> > But
> > > the end result
> > > > > was always worse than original, no matter what you'd do. The idea
is
> > to
> > > have the end result
> > > > > identical to source. It will never happen. Why? Just think about
it:
> > > first you digitize the video.
> > > > > When you digitize the video, there's a certain degree of
> degradation.
> > > Then whatever codec
> > > > > you use Huffyuv or DV would compress your footage. And then you
> > further
> > > compress it
> > > > > to DVD compliant MPEG 2 file. Now the most interesting thing is
when
> > you
> > > have your DVD
> > > > > ready. You play your DVD and you convert the digital signal *BACK*
> to
> > > analog to display
> > > > > on TV. So basically what you have is
> > > Analog->Digital->Compression->Compression->Analog.
> > > > > And this is just as some claim to preserve a footage 'cause VHS
> > > deteriorates. But VHS only
> > > > > deteriorates when you use it. When you just keep them in cool
> storage,
> > > nothing will happen
> > > > > to them. So I found a good solution. Just copy VHS to another VHS
or
> > > S-VHS. You have the
> > > > > master copy which you store in your storage. To playback just use
> the
> > > 1st generation copy. Yes
> > > > > there's a quality loss, but it is a tiny one. You don't go
> > > analog->digital->analog. You just go
> > > > > analog->analog. The results are much better. I don't know about
you,
> > but
> > > I'm off DVDR market.
> > > > >
> > > > > --Leonid
> > > >
> > > > All good points Leonid,
> > > >
> > > > There's an old saying, "Garbage in, Garbage out". However, there's
> some
> > > > trouble with your theories.
> > > >
> > > > 1) Yes you digitize it, but you'll get an exact copy of how it plays
> > > > right this minute. And yes that will be about as good the original
> > > > copy.. However, I personally have a Canopus-300 which actually
cleans
> up
> > > > some of the shortcomings of the video signal, plus once you digitize
> > > > your footage, and can run a few filters and a little tweaking on
color
> > > > corrections, and you can actually end up with a better copy of that
> > > > footage. I capture with a very high data rate (not DV) in a near
> > > > uncompressed format. The losses from this are indistinguishable to
> the
> > > > human eye, if any.
> > > >
> > > > 2) I don't know if you've been to the local Best Buy lately, but
it's
> > > > getting more and more difficult to find a single VHS tape player
these
> > > > days.. At the current rate the VHS player will go the rate of the
> > > > turntable by next year. So while yes, you might have that perfect
> copy
> > > > of the Master tape, you'll not find a way to every play it again in
a
> > > > few short years.
> > > >
> > > > 3) In another theory, A final step of outputting to an analog TV
will
> > > > also be a thing of the past, as we look forward to HDTV. So your
> theory
> > > > here is also a moot point too.
> > > >
> > > > But, yes.. True that the original would have been much better off
> going
> > > > straight to digital DV, but I think the whole point is not to try to
> fix
> > > > what was done in some kind of remaster, but more like to create
> > > > something that will allow you be able to play it at all years down
the
> > > line.
> > > >
> > > > -Richard
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Toshi,

Good points but you are refering to image degradation that occurs when
rendering to mpeg. My point was that I don't see any image degradation when
capturing, via digicam passthrough, VHS to the PC. Video is store as
uncompressed AVI and I have not seen any loss of quality. I'm sure there is,
and in a production environment it may be unacceptable, but for most home
users I would think it is fine.

"Toshi1873" <toshi1873@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1adb1aaf256157d4989826@news-50.giganews.com...
> In article <1081080705.999396@sj-nntpcache-5>, me@me.com
> says...
> > Looks like your question did not get answered:
> > If you want to copy only you can just buy a standalone DVD Recorder. If
you
> > want to do any editing or make nice menus, etc., buy a burner for your
PC
> > and some easy to use editing/authoring software such as Ulead. You
should be
> > able to copy from VHS to the PC by going through the Digital Camacorder
in
> > passthrough. I do this all the time and can't tell any difference
between
> > the original VHS and the new DVD. Maybe my eyes arn't as discreminating
as
> > some though.
>
> Get some good test footage... close up pictures of
> waves, ripples in the water. For example, shoot some
> footage of ducks swimming in a large pond with moderate
> ripples reflecting the blue sky. The brownian(?) motion
> of the ripples will give an MPEG2 encoder fits.
> Switching to a higher motion search precision and/or
> giving it a higher bitrate to work with can minimize the
> problems.
>
> Pictures of flames might also be good test?
>
> Once you learn to spot the scenes that will likely cause
> problems, you'll start picking up on the MPEG2 flaws in
> other situations.
>
> > One reason for copying VHS to DVD is to preserve. DVD has a much longer
life
> > that VHS. Something like 100 years vs. 7 years if I'm not mistaken. I
also
> > enjoy being able to set up chapters/menu buttons and go directly to a
seen.
> >
>
> As long as you copy the DVD to new media prior to it
> failing. (And it will fail after as short as a few
> years, depending on environment / handling / media
> quality / burn quality.) Once the DVD has unrecoverable
> errors, you're pretty much sunk unless another DVD
> reader is less sensitive to the scratches or weak dyes.
>
> (Which is why I recommended adding PAR2 data earlier, to
> give you a window of recoverability between when the
> disc starts giving unrecoverable errors and when you can
> no longer recover the data at all.)
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Not to mention that there will have been numeous subsequent standards and
DVD players will be in museums 🙂.
"Bariloche" <bariloche@bariloche.com> wrote in message
news:e20270960lj1e8q7pq2ekhlue2c4k7ld0u@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 08:13:01 -0400, "Me" <me@me.com> wrote:
>
> >You should be
> >able to copy from VHS to the PC by going through the Digital Camacorder
in
> >passthrough. I do this all the time and can't tell any difference between
> >the original VHS and the new DVD.
>
> You are luckier. I can tell the difference 🙁
>
> >One reason for copying VHS to DVD is to preserve. DVD has a much longer
life
> >that VHS. Something like 100 years vs. 7 years if I'm not mistaken.
>
> I would not rely on that at all. No DVD disc has resisted for 100
> years to prove it. But you can clone a DVD till eternity, with no loss
> -quite the contrary of any analog thing.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

The problem I had with using the drive in the PC is the distance
involved from the S-VHS player in the entertainment center. With a
stand-alone (Pioneer DVR 310) permanently hooked up in the
entertainment center, it is a simple matter to record from VHS to DVD.

Dick

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 11:41:29 -0400, "Me" <me@me.com> wrote:


>Good DVD recorders for PCs are pretty cheap at under $150. That, a 1394
>card, and a VHS player serve me fine. As Toshi pointed out there are times
>you can see a degradation of quality. I haven't noticed any but I should
>have clarified that I was speaking of typical home movie use.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 08:27:13 -0400, Toshi1873 <toshi1873@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>(Which is why I recommended adding PAR2 data earlier, to
>give you a window of recoverability between when the
>disc starts giving unrecoverable errors and when you can
>no longer recover the data at all.)

Which software would allow us to do that with a DVD-R?
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> identical to source. It will never happen. Why? Just think about it: first you digitize the video.
> When you digitize the video, there's a certain degree of degradation. Then whatever codec
> you use Huffyuv or DV would compress your footage. And then you further compress it

Works fine here.

The thing you don't realize is that VHS is of a lower resolution
system to begin with than DV video. So, VHS to DV conversion results in
the retention of basically 99%+ of the original VHS quality for the most
part. (Yes, always some compression artifacts if you really, really
stress test a system, but in real-life, you won't see or notice
anything.) Any system with greater bandwidth and resolution than a
lower quality system can encode the lower quality system w/o problems,
in general.

That step is so sure, you can almost always get the 'same as
original' quality video from a VHS tape in this conversion step.

(We're not aiming for broadcast quality colors and signals here --
just something that looks and acts identical for the home consumer, even
a picky one.)

---

The next step, DV to MPEG-2 conversion for final DVD burning is
actually the most important step to baby. Here, the choice of an
encoder as well as bitrate will significantly affect the output.

At the minimum, a base 6000kbps video rate for MPEG-2 will generall
give you semi-decent encoded DVD quality video, but realistically,
you'll have to march the VHS source through a preprocessor to clean up
some noise and so forth, do a two pass MPEG-2 encoding in a high quality
encoder, then push it through.

http://www.dvdrhelp.com/guides.php?howtoselect=4#4;10

has lots of help on this step.

---

You can get DVDs that look like VHS sources if you're careful.

---

http://bealecorner.com/trv900/copy/copy.html
provides direct DV vs SVHS vs VHS vs VCD image comparisons to let
you see what kind of image resolution and quality you can expect from
higher-end equipment in each category. You can generally encode a lower
resolution format in a better format w/o any loss of quality or
resolution, but will going the other way around. DVD discs are
somewhere between DV and SVHS. (Thus, recording VHS to DV tapes will
work fine.)

---

Naturally, because VHS is an analog system, you'd prefer TBC & Noise
reduction on the VHS deck you're using for output for a cleaner DVD....

---

A 'simpler' way is to buy a DVD recorder deck, plug the VHS into
that, and press record. Usually gives most users very high-quality
copies that look great. Saves you the trouble of babysitting a PC, too.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <f2p270hjrjaqnhs129dnbarlj8sosqaihl@4ax.com>,
bariloche@bariloche.com says...
> On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 08:27:13 -0400, Toshi1873 <toshi1873@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> >(Which is why I recommended adding PAR2 data earlier, to
> >give you a window of recoverability between when the
> >disc starts giving unrecoverable errors and when you can
> >no longer recover the data at all.)
>
> Which software would allow us to do that with a DVD-R?
>

QuickPar 0.8... don't have the address handy...
something like http://quickpar.co.uk/

Only caveat is that your authoring software has to
create the VIDEO_TS folder on the hard drive, without
writing it straight to the disc. And it needs to allow
you to include extra files in the VIDEO_TS folder. I
use TDA to author, ImgTools Classic to create an ISO
file that I burn with Roxio 6.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote:
: The thing you don't realize is that VHS is of a lower resolution
: system to begin with than DV video. So, VHS to DV conversion results in
: the retention of basically 99%+ of the original VHS quality for the most
: part. (Yes, always some compression artifacts if you really, really
: stress test a system, but in real-life, you won't see or notice
: anything.) Any system with greater bandwidth and resolution than a

I did notice the difference between DV and source VHS.

: The next step, DV to MPEG-2 conversion for final DVD burning is
: actually the most important step to baby. Here, the choice of an
: encoder as well as bitrate will significantly affect the output.

MPEG 2 DVD compliant is actually better than DV in some aspects. I don't
remember, but I think it was color depth. So going to analog->DV->MPEG 2
is not the best solution.

: You can get DVDs that look like VHS sources if you're careful.

For still pictures and low motions yes, but once motions are fast DVD is not
that great 'cause that's where data rate is required the most and that's
where there's always lack of high enough data rate.

--Leonid
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <c4tb1a$22n$1@news3.bu.edu>,
Leonid Makarovsky <venom@cs.bu.edu> writes:
> David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote:
>: The thing you don't realize is that VHS is of a lower resolution
>: system to begin with than DV video. So, VHS to DV conversion results in
>: the retention of basically 99%+ of the original VHS quality for the most
>: part. (Yes, always some compression artifacts if you really, really
>: stress test a system, but in real-life, you won't see or notice
>: anything.) Any system with greater bandwidth and resolution than a
>
> I did notice the difference between DV and source VHS.
>
I have noticed artifacts on most DV25 capture senerios, but
the Canopus ADVC 300 seems to do better than my previous
experience. I am NOT arguing that the Canopus ADVC is
a panacea, or will even be satisfactory to you, but I
am INCREDIBLY critical, and have been getting supurb
results while using the ADVC 300 and TMPGENC for subsequent
denoising of LDs. IMO, LDs are much more difficult to
properly capture, because of the wider bandwidth of LD
and the unpleasant noise characteristics.

My previous capture setup included using a TBC, an SVHS deck
3D comb, a D9 deck to capture the result transparently and then
subsequently capturing that result with a DV25 converter. My
ad-hoc guess might estimate that 1/3 of the quality difference
between DV25 and DV50 is bridged with the Canopus converter --
given a noisy video source. DV25 normally dies a horrible death
with video sources that has significant HF random noise (not
as bad as MPEG2, however.) DV50 can usually deal with random
noise and reproduce it very well (doesn't get worse.) The
Canopus does a good job of transparently removing most of the
HF noise. (It also seems to help quite a bit -- but not as
much as the TMPGENC noise reduction for LF chroma noise.)

The Canopus does a generally better job of removing noise
than the combo of my DPS290 TBC with noise reduction and
the natural 3D noise reduction of the SVHS deck, yet has
less artifacts than the SVHS deck 3D comb alone.

>
>: The next step, DV to MPEG-2 conversion for final DVD burning is
>: actually the most important step to baby. Here, the choice of an
>: encoder as well as bitrate will significantly affect the output.
>
> MPEG 2 DVD compliant is actually better than DV in some aspects. I don't
> remember, but I think it was color depth. So going to analog->DV->MPEG 2
> is not the best solution.
>
Yes -- the MPEG scheme for DVD can provide 10bits of certain kinds
of gray scale. The saving grace is that most consumer video sources
(VHS, SVHS and LD) don't seem to be significantly degraded by the
Canopus DV25 conversion. Even though there are likely more similarities
between various DV25 codecs than MPEG2 codecs, there is still alot
of opportunity for making a DV25 codec work better than historically
expected. Packing detail into the available payload capability isn't
something that is easy to do in a single pass.

>
>: You can get DVDs that look like VHS sources if you're careful.
>
> For still pictures and low motions yes, but once motions are fast DVD is not
> that great 'cause that's where data rate is required the most and that's
> where there's always lack of high enough data rate.
>
With good noise reduction and VERY VERY careful amounts of evil HF
coring, the good MPEG encoders can do pretty good at 8Mbps or greater. I
have been running tests, and it seems like my results are damned
good (not perfect) when running at 8Mbps - 9.2Mbps.

I can VERY VERY positively and accurately claim that (for example)
the Bananarama Venus video looks MUCH MUCH better on my resultant
MPEG2 file than direct from the laserdisk. The video has much
less noise (esp chroma), it is very slightly corrected for sharpness
and horizontal filtering (due partially to combing and potential
standards conversion), and has no more smear than a normal good
quality consumer 3D comb (without seperate noise reduction passes.)

(The Venus video has lots of near-full-field red scenes, and it
looks attrocious on raw LD -- even with some conventional noise
reduction. After the various processing steps, it looks close
to analog BetaSP chroma noise quality (good, but not 100% like a DV50
recording). It ACTUALLY doesn't look like I sourced it from an
LD!!!

John
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 20:29:16 -0400, Toshi1873 <toshi1873@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>QuickPar 0.8... don't have the address handy...
>something like http://quickpar.co.uk/
>
>Only caveat is that your authoring software has to
>create the VIDEO_TS folder on the hard drive, without
>writing it straight to the disc. And it needs to allow
>you to include extra files in the VIDEO_TS folder. I
>use TDA to author, ImgTools Classic to create an ISO
>file that I burn with Roxio 6.

I have finally understood what's involved. Thank you very much, this
is very valuable information.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On 6 Apr 2004 04:17:46 GMT, Leonid Makarovsky <venom@cs.bu.edu> wrote:

>going to analog->DV->MPEG 2 is not the best solution.

Certainly. DV introduces degradation which can be avoided by capturing
with Huffyuv or uncompressed.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

http://www.simacorp.com/products/item.ep.html?id=477

Hm, wonder if this'll help?
(their sima color corrector was the bomb in the vhs to vhs days)

GoDVD! Model CT-2

Digital Video Duplicator with 4 Signal Enhancement Modes

Adjust the output to your needs and make perfect copies of your videos.

The CT-2 is now available!!

Sima's GoDVD! makes copying between VHS and DVD formats a snap. This
single unit will copy DVD to VHS, VHS to DVD and DVD to DVD. Both NTSC
and PAL conversions are included for videos recorded or viewed overseas.
The GoDVD! digitizes the video signal to reduce sync "noise" and
features 4 output settings to improve image quality.
Features

* Easy connection to any DVD recorder
* Stabilizes video signals for crisp copies
* Digital technology reduces noise in video sync
* S-VHS, VHS-C, VHS, 8mm and DVD compatible
* 4 output signal enhancement modes- normal, enhanced, darker and
black/white
* Supports NTSC and PAL formats
* Makes perfect copies of any video automatically.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <c4t0j6$hjo$1@news.service.uci.edu>, David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote:
>> identical to source. It will never happen. Why? Just think about it: first
> you digitize the video.
>> When you digitize the video, there's a certain degree of degradation. Then
> whatever codec
>> you use Huffyuv or DV would compress your footage. And then you further
> compress it
>
>Works fine here.
>
> The thing you don't realize is that VHS is of a lower resolution
>system to begin with than DV video. So, VHS to DV conversion results in
>the retention of basically 99%+ of the original VHS quality for the most
>part. (Yes, always some compression artifacts if you really, really
>stress test a system, but in real-life, you won't see or notice
>anything.) Any system with greater bandwidth and resolution than a
>lower quality system can encode the lower quality system w/o problems,
>in general.
But will also encode all the noise involved in VHS

>
> That step is so sure, you can almost always get the 'same as
>original' quality video from a VHS tape in this conversion step.
>
> (We're not aiming for broadcast quality colors and signals here --
>just something that looks and acts identical for the home consumer, even
>a picky one.)
>
> ---
>
> The next step, DV to MPEG-2 conversion for final DVD burning is
>actually the most important step to baby. Here, the choice of an
>encoder as well as bitrate will significantly affect the output.
>
> At the minimum, a base 6000kbps video rate for MPEG-2 will generall
>give you semi-decent encoded DVD quality video, but realistically,
>you'll have to march the VHS source through a preprocessor to clean up
>some noise and so forth, do a two pass MPEG-2 encoding in a high quality
>encoder, then push it through.
>
>http://www.dvdrhelp.com/guides.php?howtoselect=4#4;10
>
>has lots of help on this step.
>
> ---
>
> You can get DVDs that look like VHS sources if you're careful.
>
> ---
>
> http://bealecorner.com/trv900/copy/copy.html
> provides direct DV vs SVHS vs VHS vs VCD image comparisons to let
>you see what kind of image resolution and quality you can expect from
>higher-end equipment in each category. You can generally encode a lower
>resolution format in a better format w/o any loss of quality or
>resolution, but will going the other way around. DVD discs are
>somewhere between DV and SVHS. (Thus, recording VHS to DV tapes will
>work fine.)
>
> ---
>
> Naturally, because VHS is an analog system, you'd prefer TBC & Noise
>reduction on the VHS deck you're using for output for a cleaner DVD....
>
> ---
>
> A 'simpler' way is to buy a DVD recorder deck, plug the VHS into
>that, and press record. Usually gives most users very high-quality
>copies that look great. Saves you the trouble of babysitting a PC, too.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>> The thing you don't realize is that VHS is of a lower resolution
>>system to begin with than DV video. So, VHS to DV conversion results in
>>the retention of basically 99%+ of the original VHS quality for the most
>>part. (Yes, always some compression artifacts if you really, really
>>stress test a system, but in real-life, you won't see or notice
>>anything.) Any system with greater bandwidth and resolution than a
>>lower quality system can encode the lower quality system w/o problems,
>>in general.
>
> But will also encode all the noise involved in VHS

The assumption in the beginning was that the author wanted to encode
DVDs that 'looked' just like the original source VHS. Here, I'm
assuming blemished, noise, defects and all, with the exception of a
simply pass through a TBC & noise correcting VHS deck.

If we wanted to create a DVD that was cleaned up, yes, that's doable,
too, but very time consuming and you'll really have to find the best
filters and settings to clean up a noisy video by trial and error.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> Going from VHS to DVD is a waste of time! I just recently realized it. Just
> like many of you,

Only took some time the figure it out, then it was a breeze.

> I'd spend hours and days trying to convert some VHS footage to DVD. But the
> end result was always worse than original, no matter what you'd do.

You're not doing it right.

> The idea is to have the end result
> identical to source. It will never happen.

It will and it does.

> When you digitize the video, there's a certain degree of degradation.

If you use digitizers in $49-100 range, yes.

> you use Huffyuv or DV would compress your footage. And then you further
> compress it to DVD compliant MPEG 2 file.

You don't have to do it twice. Once you have an AVI, or whatever, you
can go straight to MPEG2

> So basically what you have is Analog->Digital->Compression->Compression-
> Analog.

Not much of a problem with good equipment, including TV. Many new ones
take digital input as well. My 3 y/o Sony entertainment center
(middle-of-the-line kind) has digital inputs and outputs on
everything, including the AV box.

> And this is just as some claim to preserve a footage 'cause VHS deteriorates.

Doesn't that make sense? :[

> But VHS only deteriorates when you use it. When you just keep them in cool
> storage, nothing will happen to them.

Good. Why not just throw it out, if you're not going to watch it?

> So I found a good solution. Just copy VHS to another VHS or S-VHS.

And there's no degradation there?

> there's a quality loss, but it is a tiny one.

More then you would lose with good digitizing equipment.

> You don't go analog->digital->analog. You just go
> analog->analog.

.... which guarantees loss of quality, due to the nature of analog
communication.

> The results are much better.

.... only because you haven't figured out the DVD conversion process
right yet.


> I don't know about you, but I'm off DVDR market.
>

Have you tried www.dvdrhelp.com? They have a tutorial section, which
has write-ups on any kind of conversion you'll ever want to do. Then
if something is not clear, ask questions on the forum - because of
those people and information gathered there, I have had 100% success
rate (sometimes took a while) in anything I did regarding digital
video.


Good Luck,

Igor.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> As a start should I copy them to MiniDV maybe via
> a bit of editing on the PC and keep a copy on DV tape? I don't have a DVD
> writer yet.

It's a good idea. Even when you do get the burner, you should still
keep it on MiniDV, since you may want to re-edit it later, and it's
much more difficult when video is already compressed or burned as a
movie DVD.

I also split my video project DV files into pieces under 20 minutes
long, so that I can put the files on DVD as raw AVI (not DVD
compatible) just for storage purposes.

> That's another consideration - do I buy a burner for the PC or
> an under TV recorder?

Definetly PC. It's cheaper and if you ever want to do editing, you
won't need to drag your PC downstairs to record it.


Igor.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
> Richard Ragon <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote:
> : copy.. However, I personally have a Canopus-300 which actually cleans up
> : some of the shortcomings of the video signal, plus once you digitize
> : your footage, and can run a few filters and a little tweaking on color
> : corrections, and you can actually end up with a better copy of that
> : footage. I capture with a very high data rate (not DV) in a near
> : uncompressed format. The losses from this are indistinguishable to the
> : human eye, if any.
>
> I thought Canopus was using Canopus DV codec. Let me know otherwise. I was
> looking into Canopus, but they told me the best way to buy this Canopus MBR
> or smth that captures directly in MPEG2. But this way they also compress
> the audio. And I want my audio to be PCM.
>
> --Leonid

The Canopus -300 is a DV bridge really. It simply converts a analog
signal from a composite RCA jack, and moves it over to a Firewire
in/out. You can then use what ever capture codec you like.

-Richard
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Richard Ragon <bsema01@hanaho.com> wrote:
: The Canopus -300 is a DV bridge really. It simply converts a analog

That's the thing - DV bridge. DV doesn't mean uncompressed. DV is a compressed
format.

: signal from a composite RCA jack, and moves it over to a Firewire
: in/out. You can then use what ever capture codec you like.

In the form of DV. Then you can convert DV to uncompressed, but the quality
is still DV.

--Leonid