Quantcast VHS capture - how to get best results from JVC HR-DVS3EU? - digitalFAQ Forum
Go Back    Forum > Digital Video > Video Project Help > Capture, Record, Transfer

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1  
04-01-2015, 05:54 PM
AJAX1 AJAX1 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 37
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
I Intend to digitize my old VHS tapes and use for this purpose a JVC deck HR-DVS3EU a dual MiniDV/SVHS that as firewire as output and digital TBC/NR and is in excellent condition.
I have 2 possibilities:
Use the firewire to stream the video signal to a PC for the capture process in DV format file as the deck as already TBC /DNR included
Use the s-video and an external TBC ( AV-8710) and canopus ADVC-55 to stream the signal to a pc to get also a DV format file

The first hypothesis is more straightforward but Im not sure if is the one that grants me the better quality.
Anyone as tried this solution and can give me an advice
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Ads / Sponsors
 
Join Date: ∞
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #2  
04-01-2015, 06:44 PM
sanlyn sanlyn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,648
Thanked 1,271 Times in 975 Posts
There are three points where your workflow reduces quality before you even begin to edit. (1) capturing VHS to lossy DV. (2) Using a capture device that is not the best media or color system for VHS capture. (3) DV is PC playback only. Not for DVD, not for BluRay/AVCHD, not for the internet, not for external players. You will have to re-encode to achieve any other format or playback medium, which is the third quality reduction.

(4) Any color correction, denoising, or other image mods in Dv format will be quality loss #4 with lossy-encoded DV videos.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
04-01-2015, 07:12 PM
NJRoadfan NJRoadfan is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,134
Thanked 350 Times in 287 Posts
Keep in mind the OP is dealing with PAL tapes. DV doesn't roast the chroma on PAL like it does NTSC.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
04-01-2015, 10:05 PM
lordsmurf's Avatar
lordsmurf lordsmurf is offline
Site Staff | Video
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 11,905
Thanked 2,170 Times in 1,870 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJRoadfan View Post
Keep in mind the OP is dealing with PAL tapes. DV doesn't roast the chroma on PAL like it does NTSC.
Correct.

PAL DV uses 4:2:0, and is not nearly as destructive. Though not identical, it does closely mirror the color quality seen on DVD (MPEG 4:2:0). And it's not an issue.

NTSC could have adopted 4:2:0 as well, but chose to instead compress aggressively to 4:1:1.

The difference is easy: 4:2:0 alternates, while 4:1:1 halves it. So with 4:2:0 you get full color information -- but not at once. With 4:1:1, half is just thrown away -- the same reason that deinterlacing is often bad, and a problem at best.

Though the theory states that 4:1:1 should look better, it simply does not. You can shoot 4:1:1 DV fine (on the better DV cameras, such as Canon with DiGiC), but converted VHS/Video8/Beta looks terrible. There is definite color loss, noticeable even to the video-unsavvy.

The only person that I've ever come across that holds this idea is Adam Wilt -- and his many lemming followers and parrots. His information has remained unchanged since the 90s, and it's been refuted many times.

Pretty much everybody agrees than 4:2:0 is better, and all formats have been 4:2:0 both before and since DV. Those that are not the even-better 4:2:2, that is. Only DV was boneheaded enough to go 4:1:1. And only an idiot would defend it. It was a failed technology.

4:2:0 is also more complex math. 4:1:1 is simple.

Simply put, alternating is better than halving.

I need to write a guide on this. 10+ years have gone by, and still it's misunderstood and debated.

- Did my advice help you? Then become a Premium Member and support this site.
- For sale in the marketplace: TBCs, workflows, capture cards, VCRs
Reply With Quote
The following users thank lordsmurf for this useful post: AJAX1 (04-02-2015)
  #5  
04-01-2015, 10:06 PM
sanlyn sanlyn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,648
Thanked 1,271 Times in 975 Posts
That doesn't relieve much quality loss at all. DV from analog tape looks oddly stark and noisy compared to lossless, even in monochrome. You still have noise that looks worse with DV compression artifacts. You still have to re-encode. The only way to prevent the worst effects during post-processing is to decode DV to lossless media anyway. I don't think VHS-to-DV is the answer to the question posed in the title of this thread.

I also understand that (a) most people don't see that well and won't know the difference, at least usually not until they see how sloppy the final product looks, and/or (b) people don't know the difference, period, and/or (c) many people don't care, and/or (d) many have no other choice and/or (e) many don't know better and just live with it. I'm of the mind that the O.P. isn't going to put that much work into it to go for lossless capture or lossless post-processing. But that's up to the O.P. He has alluded to quality concerns in this and previous posts, so maybe there are other elements in his workflow that he hasn't mentioned. For instance, is he happy so far with the usual invalid levels, chroma problems, and mosquito noise and motion noise that characterize analog-to-DV capture? Does he want to do anything about it? Will he want any color correction? Will he put up with the head-switching noise that's on most tapes, or will he crop and resize interlaced video and then wonder why he sees combing and other artifacts, or would he deinterlace and discard frames, thus losing half the original resolution? Do any of these defects or issues matter? Is any of that work easy with DV without causing many problems? How are the videos to be viewed? Does he want to make media copies for others? Does he want the original version for archive and another for FaceBook, etc.? No word on that yet.

But I think the O.P. is aware of those issues, and has plans.
Reply With Quote
The following users thank sanlyn for this useful post: AJAX1 (04-02-2015)
  #6  
04-02-2015, 08:07 PM
AJAX1 AJAX1 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 37
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
My intentions with the VHS captured files are to get a digital archiving repository of all my VHS tapes. I intend to get a good capture quality but not necessarily the best absolute quality as I know the limitations off my equipment and of my expertise. From the repository I intend to make enhanced versions to show on a computer or on a tv through a computer. Always from the same repository I intend in a third phase to edit the files and make a DVD from each one.
I understand that I can easily lost quality in some points of my workflow namely in the first one the capture but Im in some way also limited in my options and know how.
As a capture equipment I only have 2 options without incurring in further expenses that are considered acceptable in the lists in this forum. I will be always dealing with Pal tapes.
JVC deck HR-DVS3EU and JVC HR-S9500
I thought that using only one equipment to do the A/D conversion provided this one as support for TBC/DNR would provide me with better results. The equipment as also other features as video stabilizer ad Digital R3 . The other equipment is not very different as it also as TBC/DNR and digital R3 but would force to a more extensive workflow that theoretical can have more signal losses
JVC HR-S9500(s-video)- eventually adding a full frame Tbc ( AV-T8710)ADVC-55
Again I have limitations on the hardware side as I dont intend to buy additional equipment only if not to expensive and I can clear see an advantage. I have however a pinnacle moviebox usb710 but I dont think it will give me better results than the ADVC-55 and a Startech usb2HDcap that is a capture device encoding in H.264 (m2ts up to 18 Mbps). I dont have any other capture cards.
Related to the DV file capture format Im open to better solutions but while Im tempted to think I need the best possible digital transfer in terms of sampling rate and bit depth once I think Im dealing with VHS and a resolution od 352x288 I thought that a standard common format like DV would suit my needs for the master copy
For Post processing the 2th phase to get the enhanced video Im thinking to use Videocleaner ( sort of front end for Avisynth ) / VirtualDub that already as a vhs toolbox( repair chroma, lines strength, jitter size, sync signal, etc ) and some color/contrast correction and denoising ( neat video).I have used for the enhanced video the HuffYuv lossless codec that give a large file but not to large.

I made some samples and the results are better then the original but they can always be better.
For the third phase, conversion to DVD I have not yet studied the solution one could be to do a limited edit with virtualdub and use a LG HDD/DVD recorder RH199Hs it will be easier, but I have still to study a better not to complicated solution .I can always edit with pinnacle studio 18 and make the DVD with this product.

With this environment Im open to suggestions that can grant me better quality
Thank you again for your contributions and advices
Reply With Quote
  #7  
04-03-2015, 08:05 AM
sanlyn sanlyn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,648
Thanked 1,271 Times in 975 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJAX1 View Post
For the third phase, conversion to DVD I have not yet studied the solution one could be to do a limited edit with virtualdub and use a LG HDD/DVD recorder RH199Hs it will be easier, but I have still to study a better not to complicated solution .I can always edit with pinnacle studio 18 and make the DVD with this product.
Re-recording to a DVD recorder is pretty crude and troublesome. Not the way it's done. I should caution that you won't get the best quality with anything made by Pinnacle. Try SONY's Movie Studio Platinum to import your lossless files and to encode and author to disc. TMPGenc Video Mastering Works is also a good encoder/author. Most people would use separate encoders and authoring apps, but the two products suggested should do well. The SONY app is often found at considerable discounts.

You mention NeatVideo. While it's a reputable product (I use it, too), one has to get into some very advanced filter settings to avoid damage, and you can't just throw NeatVideo at everything. In most cases it's inappropriate when more simple and less hazardous filters will do. NV is for very specific video problems, is totally ineffective with many video defects, is not designed for general cleanup, and should never be used at its default settings. Users who are careless and indiscriminate with NeatVideo seldom fail to wreck their work.

Last edited by sanlyn; 04-03-2015 at 08:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
The following users thank sanlyn for this useful post: AJAX1 (04-04-2015)
  #8  
04-04-2015, 07:59 AM
lordsmurf's Avatar
lordsmurf lordsmurf is offline
Site Staff | Video
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 11,905
Thanked 2,170 Times in 1,870 Posts
At very least, you're using a good VCR with TBC. That's the important first step.

The Canopus DV method is not a very good one, but at least you were wise enough to get the 55 card. The 100/110 has needless features, and the 300 has quality issues. Your proposed workflow of VCR > Canopus is best. The Canopus DV codecs are possibly better than the JVC. (Canon was better than Canopus.) Try both ways, see what yields the best results.

I would suggest you add a DataVideo TBC in there, between the VCR and capture card. Otherwise you'll run into signal issues, mostly notably frame drops. Of course, that would disqualify the JVC-only capture. So perhaps the Canopus method is best.

You NEVER want to record to a computer, then back to a DVD recorder. It adds a very lossy analog conversion. (analog > digital > back to analog > digital)

As sanlyn stated, NeatVideo is often ill advised. It's too easy to make video worse, not better.

For the most part, you're headed the right direction.

FYI, your posts are "walls of text". Some of us cannot see as well as we use to, so break it up into paragraphs.

- Did my advice help you? Then become a Premium Member and support this site.
- For sale in the marketplace: TBCs, workflows, capture cards, VCRs
Reply With Quote
The following users thank lordsmurf for this useful post: AJAX1 (04-04-2015)
  #9  
04-04-2015, 08:12 PM
AJAX1 AJAX1 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 37
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
I Agree , I will try Sony Movie Studio Platinum , I have saw the prices at amazon and they are quite reasonable.

However as I will take some time capturing and enhancing video ( I have a bunch of cassettes to work with) I will have time to try and experiment some solutions . You have referred separated encoder and author apps , can you recommend any ?

Neat Video , Yes again I agree with you Neat Video is not a general solution for denoising , however I have used it with excellent results for digitized super8 films that were extremely grainy and also for some VHS with very low quality and also grainy with also good results but in general for vhs and video8 neat video is not a general solution is a particular one. I have used general denoisers filters in virtualdub with good results for medium /good quality tapes.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
04-04-2015, 09:04 PM
AJAX1 AJAX1 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 37
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Is good to know that you feel that JVC deck HR-DVS3EU is a good VCR for the task and I think in some way you are also telling me that it is superior to JVC HR-S9500.

In the Canopus DV workflow I intend to use a AV-T8710 betweeen VCR and canopus , however it is a little strange to me that a more complex workflow with potential signal losses in the analogic side can give better results that a one shot conversion through the JVC , but I have I have to believe you as you have for sure a lot more experience that I have ( mine is very limited ).

You said the canopus dv is not a very good one ,Are you referring to the capture format ,the canopus dv equipment or both . Can you propose a more efficient one . Im fully open to other workflow if eventual expenditures are limited.

DVD making through a DVD record is really “crude” as Sanlyn says and will be almost impossible for me to do, because most if not all vhs captures will need post processing but was tempting.

However the LG HDD/DVD recorder RH199Hs is a particular one as it have digital input and probably the digital firewire input will be only reencoded and there will be not a digital-analogic-digital conversion and so no conversion losses, I can even do a chain JVC playing VHS- firewire output directly connected with firewire input of LG dvd record . Input vhs output dvd – To good to be real – the problem will be the quality.

Sorry for the "walls of text", is a problem of cut and paste that compacts the text .Thank you for your tip I will have attention and try to avoid it.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
JVC HR S7600EU vs Panasonic NV HS950EG? What would you choose for better results? cybergtooth Restore, Filter, Improve Quality 5 02-28-2015 07:31 AM
Why do I get bad TFT results with Verbatim DVD+R DL discs? darthpotato94 Blank Media 3 09-06-2012 01:24 PM
DV to MP4 - Results in Jittery Video kamil Encode, Convert for discs 3 06-06-2012 12:55 AM
Reviews of JVC DVS3EU mini DV + VHS SVHS player? admin Restore, Filter, Improve Quality 3 11-03-2009 02:40 AM
DVD Authoring - Poor Results ishmot Author, Make Menus, Slideshows, Burn 9 03-16-2005 12:08 PM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:04 PM