Forum Forum (
-   General Discussion (
-   -   New discovery in video capture field? (

latreche34 07-07-2019 10:43 PM

New discovery in video capture field?
This guy thinks he discovered a new capturing method:

lordsmurf 07-08-2019 12:19 AM

Most of that guy's Youtube videos are filled with misinformation and myth. He's such a nitwit. He makes lots of Youtube videos, but he really doesn't know squat about video. He's only able to convince newbies of his "knowledge", while the rest of us see it as the BS it is. Even a casual hobbyist knows he spouts nonsense. I like how he uses tech terms like "capture thingy" and "digital spitter outer thing".

His sample captures has loads of errors. Ugh. :rolleyes:

Just remember: any moron can make a Youtube channel. And many do.

jwillis84 07-08-2019 01:10 AM

lol.. couldn't stop staring at his Trinitron Mask T-shirt

latreche34 07-08-2019 01:18 AM

I've watched some of his videos and they are actually not bad but he completely screwed up on this one. In the title he claims the easiest way which is some how true but he is giving the impression that this method gives the best possible quality which is totally wrong.

lordsmurf 07-08-2019 02:08 AM

The main issue is this guy obviously has a "Google degree", meaning all of his info is just found online on random sites. He parrots nonsense like "VHS won the format war because of porn", which is revisionist myth (that likely started as a joke in the 90s or 00s). I'm usually much kinder about people with wrong info, but somebody like this does more damage that not, his info could be considered dangerous. He repeats completely false and inept ideas.

He mispronounces tons of things on his videos, and uses random descriptions (apparently lacking in knowledge of actual technical terms). To me, that's a tell-tale sign of when to ignore somebody as a non-expert playing expert.

The dude is young, and I think most of the video tech he talks about predates him. So there's zero expert knowledge going on. No idea himself, no consultation with others -- just mind vomit. That's not the proper way to do an editorial or documentary.

And he's dismissive when you point out his wrongness. Example:

Firstly, thank you for starting with "it depends on your needs". Far too many people around these parts like to project their needs onto others and judge you for accepting quality loss for the sake of convenience. With that said, there comes a time where one wants to cut their losses and stop fretting about making it perfect for down the road. I'm well past the point of worrying about "is this the absolutely best method for preserving this material" and have moved onto "does this look as I remember it?" combined with "is this easy to manipulate/use with modern hardware" and with that goal in mind, I cannot fathom a better solution aside from perhaps marginally increasingly image quality, but at that point I think we've firmly settled into the diminishing returns category. My point here is mainly that I'm tired of worrying about optimizing for quality to the point where I'm potentially creating more work for myself down the road. Using these two boxes and a few minutes' time in Premiere, I can produce a capture that's almost exactly as I see it on my TV, and I think trying to get beyond that is a waste of time. That's my opinion, of course, but there comes a time where "good enough" is good enough.
So it goes from "best" to "I don't really care about quality". :screwy:

Deinterlacing (lost quality), no TBC with timing wiggles. That what he remembers? :unsure:

lordsmurf 07-08-2019 03:34 AM

I replied to the Youtube video. :cool:

reply @


Your "from this to this" has blacks that are severely crushed, and highlights that are so blown out that the chroma is lost. The red hand went from red to neon pink. That's not good.

By deinterlacing, you're throwing out 50% of the motion and image data. This may not be obvious on a phone or tiny Youtube screen, but it becomes very obvious on large HDTVs that everybody uses these days. You have very obvious jagged edges on diagonal lines, and jerky motion. More refined deinterlacing methods, such as QTGMC (which is easy to use in the freeware Hybrid by selur, Avisynth not needed), will either retain all motion as 59.94fps (NTSC) or 50fps (PAL), or at least run a complex algorithm that avoids artifacts like jaggies and jerkiness for 29.97fps (NTSC) or 25fps (PAL)

Capture cards do not "approximate as a CRT would draw it". Capture cards digitize the signal, and has nothing to do with a CRT. (The CRT merely displayed the signal.)

Capture cards don't "create RGB values" from analog video. You can capture with YUV, or more accurately YCrCb (as YUY2 or UVYV), which is a direct approximation of the YPrPb on VHS tape. Yes, you can capture as RGB, but that would be a boneheaded move to destroy image quality.

Interlacing is still done, it's how you receive broadcast HDTV. Interlacing is not a "problems". It saves on bandwidth. Even SD is still done on many channels, not everything is HD.

LCDs still have flicker, be it phone, computer monitor, or HDTVs. This is easily seen by trying to photograph a screen.

"Washed out" is often the source tape at fault, as consumer camcorders were junk at white balance and levels. VHS is inherently lacking in black, often giving you charcoal grays at best. This is why proc amps are suggested. But it can also be the capture values, either a known-bad card, or just user error.

"Blocky" is from lack of bitrate, generally either MPEG or H.264, and neither should be used for capturing editable material. The noise is compounded when using cheap VCRs that lack TBCs.

Quality analog starts with a quality VCR or camera, using internal line TBC. Not a low-end consumer Sony VCR.

Broken video files rarely stitch together perfectly, and often have visual jumps or audio pops. There is a lag between ending/starting a new file, more than 1/60th of a second, so it can (and often does) miss something. So that's not good.

Jagged deinterlace lines usually get more jagged when the aspect is wrongly capture at 16x9, then squished back to 4x3.

Analog videos are rarely centered. There is often CC/etc data at top, head switching noise at bottom, and broadcast/camera pillars on the sides. You never saw this because it's in the overscan, but captured video shows the entire edge-to-edge image.

For quick clips for Youtube videos, I'm sure the method works. But for home movies, or archiving tapes for any reason, this method is ghastly. Not at all suggested if quality matters.

latreche34 07-08-2019 11:31 AM

I replied too but I pretty much said that if your mom and dad were watching VHS tapes using a crappy VCR hooked up with a yellow cable it doesn't mean that you have to capture them that way. I don't think the crowd in the comments understand a word of the technical terms you mentioned above.

traal 07-08-2019 12:24 PM


Originally Posted by lordsmurf (Post 62462)
I replied to the Youtube video. :cool:

Here is a direct link to lordsmurf's comment for anyone who would like to help give it more visibility.

NJRoadfan 07-09-2019 04:28 PM

A response video was posted:

sanlyn 07-09-2019 05:22 PM

He still doesn't get it. Just can't seem to work his way out of those little YouTube boxes, either.
Most of his readers won't get it either.

lordsmurf 07-10-2019 02:56 AM

What I mostly see in that last video is "it's best because I bought it". Standard defending your purchase nonsense. And then dismissive of any actual facts.

Much of the comments peanut gallery is acting like your standard "social media" lot, holding pitchforks to fend off "book learnin' folks" with "them facts and such". Sites like Youtube far too often remind me of politics. When he says ridiculous stuff like "0.5% better", they take it at face value, when those are really just pulled-from-keister numbers. You probably could quantify signal loss numerically, and it'd be a far higher %, as even the 25/29.97 deinterlace alone is a 50% loss.

Had the video simply been "Best quick-and-dirty method to grab VHS clips for Youtube", he'd never have gotten some of the correction and de-mything. But no, he chose to proclaim the method as bestest ever for transferring all VHS video. And that was his downfall, because that's just plain horsepuckey.

I'm more amused that he had to spend hours, to make a 30-minute video, to backpeddle. Like watching a clown on a unicycle. Maybe he'll juggle for us next?

The irony here is I'd probably use that quick-and-dirty sort of method for grabbing small illustrative VHS clips for Youtube videos. An S-VHS VCR would handle the output quality, and the input would be fine for a 5-second clip. For example, you'd just be showing a shot of The Lone Ranger or Roy Rogers or something, on a 5-10 minutes video about a western topic. Video can be a PITA at times, especially when doing edit work that mixes sources (PAL/NTSC, SD/HD). I knew about that "new method" he found years ago, he just didn't get the memo. Yay for him, he found a new toy, but he got overeager and made a video that was hyperbole.

latreche34 07-10-2019 02:15 PM

You should see his video when he made a comparison between VHS and Betamax total nonsense.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:25 PM

Site design, images and content © 2002-2020 The Digital FAQ,
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2020 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.