Quantcast DV is best to convert VHS? Do you agree with this article? - Page 2 - digitalFAQ Forum
Go Back    Forum > Digital Life > Tech Myths, Misinformation

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #21  
06-04-2014, 10:39 PM
premiumcapture premiumcapture is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 581
Thanked 68 Times in 62 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanlyn View Post
Hold on. Whose VHS->DV captures were linked earlier? I refer to those, whoever they belong to.

Should we take it, then, that your request for VHS source comparisons is now null and void? Since VHS data is stored as a flavor of YCbCr, uses a different color matrix for translation to other color systems, isn't lossy source, and has several other characteristics that distinguish it from DV (tape surface and head noise being two of VHS's DV-unfriendly problems), I guess this means that comparing genuine VHS source processing is no longer part of the question. Perhaps if someone would play a DVD or standard-def AVCHD thru s-video and capture it to DV, would that serve as an equivalent analog capture source? How about DivX and Xvid? I also take it that capturing to huffyuv lossless media is no longer relevant. So....since all of the source variables have changed, and many of the hardware components that would be used for VHS->lossless capture are also removed from the equation, then the original proposal no longer exists. What remains is a different question. The images demonstrate that it's a bad idea to "capture" DV by decoding it in an analog circuit and re-encoding it thru a Canopus DV encoder. It's always better to just transfer or otherwise make an exact copy of a lossy digital source.

Oh, well. I must apologize for misinterpreting your original proposal and being a little slow to track all of its modifications. However...Like many people I'm pretty firm in my belief that VHS is not like DV, and DV is not like VHS. They aren't just different breeds. They're different species.
Can you contribute an example?
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Ads / Sponsors
 
Join Date: ∞
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #22  
06-04-2014, 11:31 PM
sanlyn sanlyn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,403
Thanked 1,067 Times in 890 Posts
I last used Firewire to capture VHS about 10 years ago. Maybe longer. Haven't made that mistake since, and never will. Captured several tapes, had to do it all over again when I discarded the Firewire setup and went back to AIW's and lossless media. I've seen a few VHS->DV / VHS->lossless comparisons over the years, and just last year by some gal in another video forum. Especially with the last mentioned, some of the differences were subtle, but others (like banding, posterization, clay-face, and highlight-clipping effects in the DV versions) became more obvious once you started working with them. Edge noise, motion noise and jaggies in the DV versions were impossible; I gave up on them and was thankful I had the YUY2/huff versions to fall back on. Using cheap players and a budget ATI USB capture stick for the huff's was a bit of a setback for those samples, IIR -- they're OK, but a far cry from the old AIW AGP's that were very well optimized for analog sources, considering their price point -- not sky-high, but far from cheap.

I have no DV originals, don't know anyone personally who has a DV webcam or shoots regulation DV with a still camera, my Canopus cards were returned and exchanged for better stuff many years ago. The one person I knew who owned a Canopus card is 6 feet under, never liked it anyway, and used his webcam and its software and attachments for direct Firewire transfers. When he wanted a VHS capture, he loaned me the tape so I could capture it to lossless with my ATI, and he tweaked the captured video himself (he was just too cheap to buy an AIW, the scoundrel). I've met a few pros in video and broadcasting who outright refuse to mix media: VHS is for analog capture, DV is for DV transfer, and never the twain shall meet. When I say pro's I don't mean paid-amateurs, most of whom will go with cheap, quick and dirty every time. I've seen their work (My neice wept when she saw her old graduation VHS->DV "digitation"). I'd be embarrassed to show them, much less to charge for them. But that's just my opinion, I guess. PQ standards everywhere are going down the tubes, some of it's worse than bad VHS, and most consumers frankly can't tell one from the other.

End of rant. Maybe someone can find some VHS samples.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
06-05-2014, 01:47 AM
thecoalman thecoalman is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 130
Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanlyn View Post
DV source is lossy encoded video to begin with.
Yes and I didn't say it wasn't, it's irrelevant to the discussion about my samples ither than the quality of the encoded capture.

Using the high quality DV as source is not ideal but if you wanted to make true comparisons you'd want to do something similar. Perhaps add some noise and some shakiness to further simulate a typical home VHS.

You're really missing the point, if I had your capture device we can then capture the same video over s-video using uncompressed. Now we can compare the Canopus capture, the uncompressed capture and most importantly we can compare them to the source. You can't do that if your source is VHS.

In any event someone asked for some samples and those are really the best I had as it pertained to this discussion because you can compare to the source. I can post VHS samples all day long but without something to compare them too it's kind of pointless.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
06-05-2014, 02:07 AM
thecoalman thecoalman is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 130
Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by premiumcapture View Post
The canopus can copy DV directly via firewire or capture over analog, so he is not in the wrong.
Just so it's clear the transfer of DV to computer that produced image 1 was directly over firewire to the computer. The Canopus does have firewire on the input/outside side but I never used it. Not sure if reencodes DV or just passes it through but if I were to guess it just passes it through.

It is versatile device though. If I recall you can use that to capture analog sources directly to a DV camcorder, you don't even need a computer. You can even simultaneously capture to the camcorder and the computer which is nice because you can make a tape backup and get the footage onto the computer at the same time. Don't quote me on that though.

Another cool thing you can do with it is use it to preview from the timeline in your editor. You can send the video from your editor back to the Canopus and it will output over RCA/S-video. Very nice for previewing edits on a TV without spending a fortune.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
06-05-2014, 02:34 AM
lordsmurf's Avatar
lordsmurf lordsmurf is online now
Site Staff | Video
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,287
Thanked 1,372 Times in 1,207 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
My advice has always been DV especially for newbies, if you are using a Canopus it just works each and every time.
This has been something I've always agreed with in two situations.

1. You're using a Mac.

There's very few choices for Mac-based hardware, and most of them require the higher-end Mac systems. Of the non-DV hardware that does exist, many have severe quirks that make the hardware unusable for quality work. As such, the Canopus DV boxes are, sadly, the least-worst options.

Of course, a Mac is simply the wrong tool for capturing analog video -- and for most video tasks entirely!

Note that I said "most" -- not "all" tasks! Keep reading...

Unlike Windows systems, a Mac is not a one-size-fits-all universal tool. Instead, Mac (like Linux) is good at very specific tasks. Although Mac is bad for "most" tasks, it has an excellent DV workflow. In fact, NLE editing (mostly DV) and DVD authoring are all that platform is good at. It's just missing too much software and hardware to be useful. Mac is not, and probably never will be, a video platform.

2. You do NOT care that much about quality.

You can use one, and I've given tips on "capturing" (transferring) DV for more than 10 years now.

But it's not ideal. You're going to have a quality hit. If you can live with that -- and hopefully it's something NOT being distributed to others (ie, commercial/pro video) -- then fine. But don't lie to yourself, or lie to others, when you discuss it.

There's zero advantages to DV, aside from (maybe) the laziness factor -- ie, the Canopus boxes can be dummy-friendly, assuming the computer doesn't have quirks/issues (Firewire ports not working, etc).

It's never been home users that have been the recipients of my scorn* -- again, I've helped people with Canopus items for years now. It's the assclown "professionals" that spout nonsense who I target in these DV topics. Anybody that has experience in any kind of professional video setting, studio or broadcast, would never say some of the stupid things I see online. (Note that I mean an actual studio -- "Hollywood", etc -- not a hokey little local strip mall store.)

* Unless they argue, and parrot the same crapola.

________________

thecoalman shoots some good DV video, and if I recall correctly, he had a nice Canon DV camera that took EOS lenses.

FYI: thecoalman, your video is almost done!

Again, shot DV is fine. It's the conversion where you start to have problems -- more when you start to double-convert everything (tape > DV > MPEG/DVD).

- Did my advice help you? Then become a Premium Member and support this site.
- Find television shows, cartoons, DVDs and Blu-ray releases at the TVPast forums.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
06-05-2014, 08:51 AM
premiumcapture premiumcapture is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 581
Thanked 68 Times in 62 Posts
I primarily use a Mac, and when doing video work (recording shows or commercials for clients) I exclusively use FCP X for editing HDV or H.264 because the workflow is easy and I really like the FCPX DVD encoder's performance.

Analog to uncompressed, I use a blackmagic intensity thunderbolt edition, which is more expensive than a canopus but allows for 10-bit captures so I can color grade if I don't use my BVP. ProRes with VHS mainly degrades saturation from what I've seen, but you can edit in uncompressed too.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
06-05-2014, 04:10 PM
thecoalman thecoalman is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 130
Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post
thecoalman shoots some good DV video, and if I recall correctly, he had a nice Canon DV camera that took EOS lenses.
GL2, no lenses but actually glad I didn't go all out for the XL because HD was coming on the market. I would have spent a hunk of cash on SD camcorder. The GL2 was more than sufficient for my needs then and now because anything I'm producing is going on the web. It's SD but the quality is fantastic.






Quote:
FYI: thecoalman, your video is almost done!
....and the check is in the mail. ROFL
Reply With Quote
  #28  
07-29-2014, 09:26 PM
premiumcapture premiumcapture is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 581
Thanked 68 Times in 62 Posts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC5a10kg158

This entire show was shot on DV.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
07-30-2014, 01:57 AM
lordsmurf's Avatar
lordsmurf lordsmurf is online now
Site Staff | Video
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,287
Thanked 1,372 Times in 1,207 Posts
Shooting native DV is fine. It's using it for conversion that is the problem.

- Did my advice help you? Then become a Premium Member and support this site.
- Find television shows, cartoons, DVDs and Blu-ray releases at the TVPast forums.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
07-30-2014, 02:00 AM
premiumcapture premiumcapture is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 581
Thanked 68 Times in 62 Posts
The more AviSynth I learn, the more I think a VHS tape shot with a good camera beats out DV
Reply With Quote
  #31  
07-30-2014, 07:09 AM
thecoalman thecoalman is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 130
Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by premiumcapture View Post
The more AviSynth I learn, the more I think a VHS tape shot with a good camera beats out DV
The GL2 is a mid range camcorder, you're not going to get this from a VHS camcorder.

This first one is deinterlaced:




Reply With Quote
  #32  
11-04-2016, 05:33 PM
SFtheGreat SFtheGreat is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 134
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by premiumcapture View Post
The more AviSynth I learn, the more I think a VHS tape shot with a good camera beats out DV
VHS has way better quality that most of the compressed videos on the internet.

Also, both DV and MPEG-2 are obsolete, better way would be capturing to uncompressed formats.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
11-04-2016, 08:42 PM
sanlyn sanlyn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,403
Thanked 1,067 Times in 890 Posts
I hate to burst your bubble here, but MPEG is still the broadcast standard and isn't going away soon. It will continue to exist, if for no other purpose than that of annoying you and reminding everyone how godawful VHS was, is, and always will be, and how filtered, denuded and plastic the newer codecs look.

Encoding for typical internet viewers is the worst thing that ever happened to video. It's bad enough that so much of it is dumbed-down for increasingly dumber viewers, but is now expected to be really ugly as a norm.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
11-05-2016, 03:14 AM
SFtheGreat SFtheGreat is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 134
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanlyn View Post
I hate to burst your bubble here, but MPEG is still the broadcast standard and isn't going away soon. It will continue to exist, if for no other purpose than that of annoying you and reminding everyone how godawful VHS was, is, and always will be, and how filtered, denuded and plastic the newer codecs look.

Encoding for typical internet viewers is the worst thing that ever happened to video. It's bad enough that so much of it is dumbed-down for increasingly dumber viewers, but is now expected to be really ugly as a norm.
If someone bought $1 tapes and had a shitty deck, then there was no other way to have awful quality, just like with all other analog media, but with proper equipment analog might be just fine. MPEG is lossy in both audio and video, so it isn't the best there is.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
11-05-2016, 04:28 AM
lordsmurf's Avatar
lordsmurf lordsmurf is online now
Site Staff | Video
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,287
Thanked 1,372 Times in 1,207 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFtheGreat View Post
Also, both DV and MPEG-2 are obsolete
MPEG is lossy in both audio and video, so it isn't the best there is.
That's not accurate.

I'm betting that you're referring to the very narrow MPEG-2 specs used for DVD-Video. DVD-Video (or "DVD") used the MP@ML profile/level with very/overly aggressive sub-10mbit bitrates. But MPEG is a very versatile format, intended for both capturing and archiving, as well as broadcasting. Along with H.264 (which some also state is "obsolete"), MPEG rules both the airwaves and disc storage. You're overlooking the 422 and High settings, which negate all complaints of compression, be it colorspace or bitrate.

Compared to those high-profile/level MPEG, YUY2/YV12/UYUV lossless AVI compression has no real advantage aside from compatibility -- and that's the reason that lossless AVI is suggested (and often required) for analog SD work. With the right workflow, however, MPEG can be equally decent. It's all about details, not simply "MPEG" or "lossless AVI".

Contrary to popular belief (within hobby communities), lossless AVI is actually a minority for ingest, suitable mainly for analog conversions. When I worked for studios, I dealt with a wide array of sources. MPEG outnumbered DV, and lossless AVI was never submitted. Codecs like DNxHD and ProRes422 long ago usurped others, and those are lossy codecs as well. MXF that contained MPEG or DV was extremely popular for 4x3 sources; mostly MPEG, not DV.

MPEG gets much, much more complicated that I'm describing here, too. I have some broadcasting technical papers that would boggle the average user. For example, we didn't even talk about multicast streams.

Quote:
but with proper equipment analog might be just fine
It's not just equipment (hardware), but the entire workflow. It's starts with hardware, yes, but it'd doesn't stop there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SFtheGreat View Post
VHS has way better quality that most of the compressed videos on the internet
DV: For conversion, yes. In fact, not just "obsolete" but "never was". For shooting, no.
H.264: No, not if encoded properly.
MPEG: No, not if encoded properly.

Hint: Don't use Youtube as the reference for "compressed videos on the internet". Those videos sucking is well known.

- Did my advice help you? Then become a Premium Member and support this site.
- Find television shows, cartoons, DVDs and Blu-ray releases at the TVPast forums.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
11-05-2016, 04:34 AM
SFtheGreat SFtheGreat is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 134
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post
That's not accurate.
Yes, I was specifically talking about DVD-quality MPEG. I forgot that MPEG was also used on a medium with far superior quality than DVD, that medium being VHS, D-VHS to be more specific.

As for capturing and editing lossless is rather easier, as it won't produce as many lossy compression artifacts. It's similar to editing music in wave and mp3, I guess noone would be that crazy to submit mp3s to pressing plant.

It starts with hardware, but it also requires skill.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
11-05-2016, 04:43 AM
lordsmurf's Avatar
lordsmurf lordsmurf is online now
Site Staff | Video
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,287
Thanked 1,372 Times in 1,207 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFtheGreat View Post
Yes, I was specifically talking about DVD-quality MPEG
Well, a VHS source image can be better than DVDs made from it, but you still can't say "VHS is better than DVD". It's still not entirely accurate. For example, if you take a studio source, the DVD will always look better than VHS, even with compression artifacts.

VHS creates chroma and timing issues that would never be present on a DVD. Conversions of that VHS to DVD is the main issue, as the errors become compounded, and the DVD indeed always looks worse. A middle step is required, and that's why I established this site about 15 years ago. (In fact, I was doling out advice in the 1990s, for creating better analog video.)

You can say "DVD looks worse", but only in certain contexts. In others, it's entirely false.

Quote:
As for capturing and editing lossless is rather easier
It starts with hardware, but it also requires skill.
No disagreements here.

Quote:
I guess noone would be that crazy to submit mp3s to pressing plant.
Guess again. Sadly. Too common. Ugh.

- Did my advice help you? Then become a Premium Member and support this site.
- Find television shows, cartoons, DVDs and Blu-ray releases at the TVPast forums.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
11-05-2016, 05:02 AM
SFtheGreat SFtheGreat is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 134
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post
Well, a VHS source image can be better than DVDs made from it, but you still can't say "VHS is better than DVD". It's still not entirely accurate. For example, if you take a studio source, the DVD will always look better than VHS, even with compression artifacts.

VHS creates chroma and timing issues that would never be present on a DVD. Conversions of that VHS to DVD is the main issue, as the errors become compounded, and the DVD indeed always looks worse. A middle step is required, and that's why I established this site about 15 years ago. (In fact, I was doling out advice in the 1990s, for creating better analog video.)

You can say "DVD looks worse", but only in certain contexts. In others, it's entirely false.

No disagreements here.

Guess again. Sadly. Too common. Ugh.
I didn't say "VHS is better than DVD" (though some people like it more than digital, the same as some like winyls over CDs), I said D-VHS was better than DVD.

Lossy vs lossless, there is nothing to discuss in that matter. Properly made lossy compression might be good enough, but there is a loss of quality from definition. Capturing to lossy to then edit it and recompress isn't the best idea one might have.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
11-05-2016, 05:11 AM
lordsmurf's Avatar
lordsmurf lordsmurf is online now
Site Staff | Video
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,287
Thanked 1,372 Times in 1,207 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFtheGreat View Post
Lossy vs lossless, there is nothing to discuss in that matter. Properly made lossy compression might be good enough, but there is a loss of quality from definition. Capturing to lossy to then edit it and recompress isn't the best idea one might have.
Well, again, it depends. As you said, it's also about skill.

A properly encoded DNxHD or ProRes422 loss will be imperceptible. When I used Avid or FCP, with studio sources, I couldn't tell the difference between it and a massive lossless file. And we're talking about me here, not somebody that doesn't know any better. I looked really hard, and saw nothing. I never met a professional that has. (Disclaimer: I never worked on anything that was viewed larger than 100 inches.)

So again, it's about details. Not just "lossless vs. lossy", but which codecs? That matters.

Granted, this is getting off-topic to the initial question: DV made from VHS. (And of course, that's blah.)

- Did my advice help you? Then become a Premium Member and support this site.
- Find television shows, cartoons, DVDs and Blu-ray releases at the TVPast forums.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
11-05-2016, 05:44 AM
SFtheGreat SFtheGreat is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 134
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Offtopic indeed.

To go back ontopic, I shall put my opinion on the title question: No, uncompressed is better, then edit, upgrade and clean up, then convert to whatever format you like, even DV.

By the way, I need to find my miniDV camcorder.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Sony 185TB cassette news article premiumcapture General Discussion 4 07-21-2014 05:47 AM
Beware of Article Spammers! kpmedia Web Design + Site Planning 0 07-20-2013 08:34 AM
Combining scans of a newspaper article into one image Sossity Photo Processing, Scanning & Printing 1 08-04-2011 12:22 PM
Problems with Ritek DVD-R quality, archived article (2004) lordsmurf Blank Media 2 11-11-2010 04:01 AM
Do you agree with this cp32 Videography: Cameras, TVs and Players 4 06-07-2007 01:25 AM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:32 PM