VHS capture recommendation

[Shawn]

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

Hi all, I'm trying to preserve old 8mm camcorder footages from VHS onto
computer, with as little quality loss as possible. I have a LeadTek
Winfast capture card, and the computer is an XP1800+ with 512mb DDR and
Windows XP. Storage is not a problem for now since I just bought a new
200gb drive for this. I'm using the PVR software that came with the
capture card. For VCR, my good Sony player is breaking down so I'm using
a cheapo Sanyo unit (does the choice of VCR matter? I seem to detect
some quality difference)

Anyway, what do you think is the best method (ie
resolution/codec/software/etc) to preserve the quality of the source, in
my case? I intend to burn the processed video onto a dual layer DVDR one
day.

I've tried capturing at 640x480 uncompressed but there seems to be some
frame drops, so maybe my computer isn't fast enough. The PVR software
has several resolutions available, but some resolutions below 640x480
has weird aspect ratios (eg 480x480 NTSC SVCD, 352x480 NTSC). I tried
another software called Virtual VCR which supposed has support for my
card, but it fails.

Thanks!

 

[Guest]

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

Shawn wrote:
> I've tried capturing at 640x480 uncompressed but there seems to be some
> frame drops, so maybe my computer isn't fast enough.

Capturing in uncompressed these days is somewhat pointless, with the
availability of lossless codecs like huffyuv.

Give that a shot and your data rate will cut in about half, but while
still having equivalent quality to uncompressed.

Whatever capture resolution you use, you'll want to have 480 vertical
lines, so that you retain the interlacing information. D1 is 720x480,
but with a VHS source, Half D1 (352x480) should be plenty. (Both of
which are valid DVD resolutions)


-WD

 

[Shawn]

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

Will Dormann wrote:

> > I've tried capturing at 640x480 uncompressed but there seems to be some
> > frame drops, so maybe my computer isn't fast enough.
>
> Capturing in uncompressed these days is somewhat pointless, with the
> availability of lossless codecs like huffyuv.

Ok thanks for the suggestion. On the other hand, nothing in theory is faster
than uncompressed, right? So if I am stuttering at a resolution when
uncompressed, then I'll be stuttering in any codec, correct?

> Whatever capture resolution you use, you'll want to have 480 vertical
> lines, so that you retain the interlacing information. D1 is 720x480,
> but with a VHS source, Half D1 (352x480) should be plenty. (Both of
> which are valid DVD resolutions)

So the aspect ratio will be correct when the video is processed by a DVD
player, even though in Windows the clip will have an incorrect ratio? Thanks.

 

[Guest]

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

Shawn wrote:

> Will Dormann wrote:
>
>
>>>I've tried capturing at 640x480 uncompressed but there seems to be some
>>>frame drops, so maybe my computer isn't fast enough.
>>
>>Capturing in uncompressed these days is somewhat pointless, with the
>>availability of lossless codecs like huffyuv.
>
>
> Ok thanks for the suggestion. On the other hand, nothing in theory is faster
> than uncompressed, right? So if I am stuttering at a resolution when
> uncompressed, then I'll be stuttering in any codec, correct?

Not if your hard drive can't keep up with uncompressed video.


>>Whatever capture resolution you use, you'll want to have 480 vertical
>>lines, so that you retain the interlacing information. D1 is 720x480,
>>but with a VHS source, Half D1 (352x480) should be plenty. (Both of
>>which are valid DVD resolutions)
>
>
> So the aspect ratio will be correct when the video is processed by a DVD
> player, even though in Windows the clip will have an incorrect ratio? Thanks.

Yes. Assuming the disc was authored properly, your DVD player will play
it at 4:3, regardless of resolution. Even Windows Media Player will
play it at the correct aspect ratio if you go to full screen mode
(Alt-Enter). At least, that's the case with all the Half D1 videos
I've made.


-WD

 

[Guest]

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

Shawn said:

>>Hi all, I'm trying to preserve old 8mm camcorder footages from VHS onto
computer, with as little quality loss as possible.>

If you possibly still have the 8mm footage, using that will be much better
than going from VHS.





Dave
http://members.tripod.com/~VideoDave

 

[Shawn]

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

Will Dormann wrote:

> > So if I am stuttering at a resolution when
> > uncompressed, then I'll be stuttering in any codec, correct?
>
> Not if your hard drive can't keep up with uncompressed video.

The uncompressed video/audio clips I recorded at 640x480 is about 20MB/s. It should
be within the limit of the harddrive, but maybe sometimes it dips below that.

> Even Windows Media Player will
> play it at the correct aspect ratio if you go to full screen mode
> (Alt-Enter). At least, that's the case with all the Half D1 videos
> I've made.

WMP9 is displaying my recorded 352x480 clips in the wrong ratio in full screen for
some reason.

 

[Guest]

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

> > > So if I am stuttering at a resolution when
> > > uncompressed, then I'll be stuttering in any codec, correct?
> >
> > Not if your hard drive can't keep up with uncompressed video.
>
> The uncompressed video/audio clips I recorded at 640x480 is about
20MB/s. It should
> be within the limit of the harddrive, but maybe sometimes it dips
below that.

Defragged recently? Most 7200 rpm drives have no problem capturing
uncompressed avi's and your computer is plenty fast enough. Check for
the usual suspects, anti-virus and other programs that load at startup.
I routinely capture uncompressed because Premier seems to get a little
hinkey with Huffy avi's and I prefer ProCoder over capturing to mpeg.

 

[Guest]

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

Shawn wrote:

> WMP9 is displaying my recorded 352x480 clips in the wrong ratio in full screen for
> some reason.

I'm not sure. I use WMP6.4 here. (It's been all downhill since there!)


-WD

 

[Shawn]

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

DavesVideo wrote:

> If you possibly still have the 8mm footage, using that will be much better
> than going from VHS.

I don't think I have it anymore, but actually I'd be happy just to preserve the
quality available from the VHS copy.

 

[Shawn]

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

Morrmar wrote:

> Defragged recently? Most 7200 rpm drives have no problem capturing
> uncompressed avi's and your computer is plenty fast enough. Check for
> the usual suspects, anti-virus and other programs that load at startup.
> I routinely capture uncompressed because Premier seems to get a little
> hinkey with Huffy avi's and I prefer ProCoder over capturing to mpeg.

The harddrive is brand new so fragmentation shouldn't be a problem. But do
you really think the computer is fast enough? I mean, I was thinking maybe
switching to a 3ghz class processor, getting 1gig of ram, etc, might help,
but I do have AVG antivirus installed.

 

[Guest]

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

"Shawn" <no@spam.com> wrote in message news:40905F51.6B6EB1D0@spam.com...
> Morrmar wrote:
>
> > Defragged recently? Most 7200 rpm drives have no problem capturing
> > uncompressed avi's and your computer is plenty fast enough. Check for
> > the usual suspects, anti-virus and other programs that load at startup.
> > I routinely capture uncompressed because Premier seems to get a little
> > hinkey with Huffy avi's and I prefer ProCoder over capturing to mpeg.
>
> The harddrive is brand new so fragmentation shouldn't be a problem. But do
> you really think the computer is fast enough? I mean, I was thinking maybe
> switching to a 3ghz class processor, getting 1gig of ram, etc, might help,
> but I do have AVG antivirus installed.

1 gig of ram won't improve captures over 512 Megs or ram. Capturing is all
CPU, and yours should be plenty. You will always drop some frames when
capturing from VHS because the tape loses some of it's sync info over time.
How many frames are you dropping? A frame every minute or so is not bad
with aged VHS tapes that have lost some of their signal.

Sanman
>

 

[Guest]

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

I don't have the original message, so I'll have to connect from here.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:10:35 GMT, Will Dormann
<wdormann@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

>Shawn wrote:
>
>> Will Dormann wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I've tried capturing at 640x480 uncompressed but there seems to be some
>>>>frame drops, so maybe my computer isn't fast enough.
>>>
>>>Capturing in uncompressed these days is somewhat pointless, with the
>>>availability of lossless codecs like huffyuv.
>>
>>
>> Ok thanks for the suggestion. On the other hand, nothing in theory is faster
>> than uncompressed, right? So if I am stuttering at a resolution when
>> uncompressed, then I'll be stuttering in any codec, correct?
>
>Not if your hard drive can't keep up with uncompressed video.

Playing DivX requires a lot of CPU power. Playing uncompressed RGB
requires a lot of harddrive power. Huffyuv doesn't require any of
them.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:41:57 GMT, Will Dormann
<wdormann@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

>Shawn wrote:
>
>> WMP9 is displaying my recorded 352x480 clips in the wrong ratio in full screen for
>> some reason.
>
>I'm not sure. I use WMP6.4 here. (It's been all downhill since there!)

I use WMP6.4 too, and an interlaced 352x480 mpeg-2 made for DVD plays
correctly. The problem may have to do with the way the mpeg-2 clip was
created in the first place. IOW, if it was really made in DVD
compliant form.

 

[Guest]

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

I do all my capture on a PIII 1Ghz Ram 7200 drives and don't have any frame
drops and I capture at the highest quality possible. Mind you I have almost
zero background tasks running (you could try using enditall to close any
unnecessary tasks). Check out the article on avoiding dropped frames @
http://www.digitalfaq.com/ this might help ensure good quality captures.


"Shawn" <no@spam.com> wrote in message news:40905F51.6B6EB1D0@spam.com...
> Morrmar wrote:
>
> > Defragged recently? Most 7200 rpm drives have no problem capturing
> > uncompressed avi's and your computer is plenty fast enough. Check for
> > the usual suspects, anti-virus and other programs that load at startup.
> > I routinely capture uncompressed because Premier seems to get a little
> > hinkey with Huffy avi's and I prefer ProCoder over capturing to mpeg.
>
> The harddrive is brand new so fragmentation shouldn't be a problem. But do
> you really think the computer is fast enough? I mean, I was thinking maybe
> switching to a 3ghz class processor, getting 1gig of ram, etc, might help,
> but I do have AVG antivirus installed.
>

 

[Guest]

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

In article <40902556.C6ECBBB4@spam.com>, no@spam.com
says...
> Will Dormann wrote:
>
> > > I've tried capturing at 640x480 uncompressed but there seems to be some
> > > frame drops, so maybe my computer isn't fast enough.
> >
> > Capturing in uncompressed these days is somewhat pointless, with the
> > availability of lossless codecs like huffyuv.
>
> Ok thanks for the suggestion. On the other hand, nothing in theory is faster
> than uncompressed, right? So if I am stuttering at a resolution when
> uncompressed, then I'll be stuttering in any codec, correct?
>

With regards to CPU... yes, uncompressed is going to be
faster then any codec. But I'll bet that if you look at
your CPU graph, you're nowhere near using even 10% of
your CPU.

Uncompressed video is either 720x480x16bpp 30fps or
720x480x24bpp 30fps. (TV is only 16 bits per pixel,
which is why you should capture in YUY2 instead of RGB.)
Doing the math... 720x480x2x30 = 20736000 bytes/sec and
720x480x3x30 is 31104000 bytes/sec. That's a lot of
data (21 or 31 MB/s), and very few systems can move that
amount of data across the PCI bus and onto the hard
drive.

HuffYUV will cut that data amount by a large margin
(2:1?). PicVideo MJPEG codec will cut that by 1:2.1 to
1:4 (anywhere from 4.0MB/s to 9.0MB/s for 720x480 30fps
16bpp). Those data rates are a lot easier to deal with
for the motherboard/harddrive.

 

[Guest]

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

> Doing the math... 720x480x2x30 = 20736000 bytes/sec and
> 720x480x3x30 is 31104000 bytes/sec. That's a lot of
> data (21 or 31 MB/s), and very few systems can move that
> amount of data across the PCI bus and onto the hard
> drive.

Since when is an IDE controller on a PCI bus? I used to capture
uncompressed avi's with a 440BX mobo and a 1.2 Cely that I put in it
with no dropped frames at all. A defragged hd on a separate controller
was the key. Any system within the last three or four years can do it
with no problem at all. I do it now... only at the same time I navigate
the Web, respond on Usenet _and_ encode mpeg's. My guess would be the
op has a driver or config problem with the capture card.

 

[Shawn]

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

Toshi1873 wrote:

> Uncompressed video is either 720x480x16bpp 30fps or
> 720x480x24bpp 30fps. (TV is only 16 bits per pixel,
> which is why you should capture in YUY2 instead of RGB.)

Does anyone know if 16 bits per pixel captures 100% of the color information from
a VHS or 8mm camcorder cassette? Thanks.

Shawn

 

[Shawn]

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

Morrmar wrote:

> My guess would be the op has a driver or config problem with the capture
> card.

I discovered that I was using an ATA33 cable at the time, which was
probably the cause. I also found out I didn't really lose frames, though I
did have problem playing back the video.