Quantcast Capture VHS-C through Digital8 camcorder losslessly? - digitalFAQ Forum
Go Back    Forum > Digital Video > Video Project Help > Capture, Record, Transfer

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1  
08-17-2016, 06:12 AM
skippy skippy is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
hi, can i capture my vhs-c tapes from a panasonic analogue camcorder through a sony [dcr-trv 340-e]digital 8
camcorder using its tbc > to a usb capture card > to comp, [lossless], or is all video that comes out of a. D8 camera converted to DV format..
the panasonic only has composite output...
the sony has dv , svideo , 3.5mm av , and usb, jacks...
i was capturing to dv format, but since reading lots of threads here, i thought maybe i could do better, without all the associated costs of data 1000s and ES10s...anyway,these would be near on impossible to source in australia ...... thanks..
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Ads / Sponsors
 
Join Date: ∞
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #2  
08-26-2016, 01:07 AM
lordsmurf's Avatar
lordsmurf lordsmurf is offline
Site Staff | Video
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 11,126
Thanked 1,978 Times in 1,705 Posts
It can't be done. Digital8 is DV on 8mm Sony tape. So it'll be DV, not lossless. Even if the final file is lossless, it will go through DV processing first.

But if you're in Australia, that means PAL, and PAL DV is 4:2:0, which is decently fine. NTSC 4:1:1 is the problem.

A D8 camera won't replace a TBC. If it has one, hopefully it will help. Camera TBCs are notoriously weak, may not work at all on passthroughs, and are mostly intended for playback on the source tape. Many don't have TBCs at all, so double-check your model.

- 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
The following users thank lordsmurf for this useful post: skippy (09-07-2016)
  #3  
08-27-2016, 09:12 AM
msgohan msgohan is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,200
Thanked 280 Times in 234 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by skippy View Post
can i capture my vhs-c tapes from a panasonic analogue camcorder through a sony [dcr-trv 340-e]digital 8
camcorder using its tbc > to a usb capture card > to comp, [lossless]
This isn't possible, because Digital8 camcorders don't offer separate input and output analog jacks.
Reply With Quote
The following users thank msgohan for this useful post: skippy (09-07-2016)
  #4  
09-07-2016, 06:36 PM
skippy skippy is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
thanks LS and MS for replies,,,,, [ PAL DV is 4:2:0, which is decently fine.] this explains a bit,as my old eyes reckoned the quality of the vhs tapes was ok. so one ? if i may.....would i be better off [archive wise] to transfer the vhs video through D8 camcorder to comp , edit the dv-avi files then burn to disc..............
or record from vhs camcorder to [dvd hdd recorder/burner], edit via tv ,then burn to disc... XP mode is the best quality i can set the dvd recorder to. thanks....
Reply With Quote
  #5  
09-08-2016, 07:06 AM
sanlyn sanlyn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,648
Thanked 1,244 Times in 970 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by skippy View Post
thanks LS and MS for replies,,,,, [ PAL DV is 4:2:0, which is decently fine.]
I don't agree. Color resolution is the least of your problems going from VHS to DV. DV involves compression artifacts, and tape noise and other analog defects will look even worse. You'll have excessive interlace combing, buzzing edges and aliasing from sloppy DV re-interlace and field order reversal, colors that look plastic and "cooked", and blown out highlights among other problems. DV can be burned to DVD disc only as data files, not as DVD -- OK for backup archive, but not playable with a DVD player. You will have to re-encode your lossy DV to yet another lossy final format for more universal playback, which involves two successive stages of quality loss.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skippy View Post
or record from vhs camcorder to [dvd hdd recorder/burner], edit via tv ,then burn to disc... XP mode is the best quality i can set the dvd recorder to. thanks....
XP recording would be better quality than going through two lossy encodes but you'll still have analog defects. MPEG is a lossy final delivery format not designed for precise edits, filtering, or other cleanup. DVD is also 4.2.0. Better than DV, but DVD recorders make cuts on key frames only, so you'll have some frames you don't want and will lose a few frames that you do want on each cut.

Apparently you've given up on lossless capture, cleanup, and other lossless advantages. But an XP recording will be preferable to DV.
Reply With Quote
The following users thank sanlyn for this useful post: skippy (09-09-2016)
  #6  
09-09-2016, 07:01 PM
lordsmurf's Avatar
lordsmurf lordsmurf is offline
Site Staff | Video
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 11,126
Thanked 1,978 Times in 1,705 Posts
DV compression in PAL isn't that bad. Lossless is better, sure, but DV is comparable to MPEG in PAL-land, and I've never had a problem with MPEG capturing.

In most cases, yes, a D8 camera will be better than most DVD recorders. However, we need to see sample clips to say this with more confidence.

It's not ideal, but you can some do restoration from 4:2:0 source.

It's 4:1:1 source that has multiple compression problem, stemming from the colorspace compression.

Remember that DV was never intended as a capture format, just a shooting format. Capturing in DV is a make-shift rigging job, that gives passable results. In NTSC, it's pretty lousy. In PAL, it's not bad, similar to MPEG. And MPEG was intended for distribution, capture, and more. It's a versatile format.

Due to other circuits in the D8 cameras (TBC, etc), XP mode on a DVD recorder may be inferior. It really depends on the exact hardware.

- 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
The following users thank lordsmurf for this useful post: skippy (09-09-2016)
  #7  
09-09-2016, 09:43 PM
sanlyn sanlyn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,648
Thanked 1,244 Times in 970 Posts
Well...if you say so, but PAL DV looks worse than MPEG to me. DV is always candy-cane plastic with buzzing edges, even when it's original DV source. It never looks real. But many enjoy looking at those etched-in-plstic effects. It depends on what the owner expects and what he can work with in his country. He might have no other choice than DV.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
09-09-2016, 11:06 PM
skippy skippy is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
thanks for replies,
Quote:
Apparently you've given up on lossless capture, cleanup, and other lossless advantages.
atm i think so.
1 = i would have to beg,borrow,steal or buy a vhs camcorder and/or vhs player with s-video in/outputs as mine only have composite
2 = buy a dmr es-10... although one has just popped up on ebay [aust]
3 = buy a vc 500 [as the ati 600 is not manufactured any more] .
i;m not even sure if my core 2 duo p8700@2.35 ghz laptop would even handle lossless transfer. so i think the costs would outweigh

the benefits for me. i have about 16 [45 min] tapes to do, but probably about 50% would be edited out [i'd bet my wife is a better

kamikaze than your sister sanlyn lol]. it would have been nice though, to compare the finished products [ie] [dv]-vs-[vhs raw capture]

vs [cleaned up capture]. out of curiosity, if i did capture lossless[huffyuv]?, would it have been possible to burn these files as data

discs, post to someone like you guys,pay to process and have sent back to me as cleaned up lossless files [discs]. sometimes i

wish i had never found this site, as i would be none the wiser about video quality and just kept plodding along with bloody nero.

but i'm glad i did ,as i have learnt lots and now using vdub and avidemux [basics so far]....thanks again.....dennis..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
09-10-2016, 08:09 AM
sanlyn sanlyn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,648
Thanked 1,244 Times in 970 Posts
Let me first admit that I'm a little tough on DV for several reasons (color sensitivcity for one thing, lack of input level controls in most cases, and I find things like blown out highlights to be incredibly annoying). But I guess all video- and audiophiles have their druthers. I do appreciate your position, similar to Brits and Europeans who are desperate to find PAL SVHS machines when NTSC SVHS was more commonplace in North America. In the end you have to work with what you can get, which is seldom what you want. Same here. All I need to upgrade my own setup would be as little as a spare $15,000 or so, LOL! Fat chance of that! Maybe I'll win a lottery and build my own Industrial Light & Magic, LOL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skippy View Post
it would have been nice though, to compare the finished products [ie] [dv]-vs-[vhs raw capture] vs [cleaned up capture]. out of curiosity, if i did capture lossless[huffyuv]?, would it have been possible to burn these files as data discs, post to someone like you guys,pay to process and have sent back to me as cleaned up lossless files [discs].
It would be more cost effective to have someone provide good lossless captures that you can post-process at your own pace. They can always be archived to discs or external drives. 45 minutes of tape can be captured in 45 minutes. Post processing is the labor intensive part and would cost much more -- and more than likely would be uncut, perhaps in a final delivery format unsuitable for further work, and often not tweaked to your satisfaction. Meanwhile, over the years there have been hundreds of posted DV-vs-lossless comparisons, so the opinions you see in favor of lossless go back many years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skippy View Post
wish i had never found this site, as i would be none the wiser about video quality and just kept plodding along with bloody nero.
Ha, well, I sort of had mixed feelings myself. But my initial setup using free OEM software taught me off the bat that something had to be better than what I was getting. Frankly some people will watch anything that moves on a display. And if it makes sounds, it's even better. Others would prefer a clean piece of work that allows them to get more involved watching and reliving their taped memories.

The ATi 600 is still around through various outlets, but there are others that can compete from Hauppage and Diamond. I have a VC500 myself and while it's a decent card I think a few others are a tad better and less of a hassle in some respects. Some won't work with Win7 or 10, others will, but I don't recall what OS you're using. I've made and seen some nice captures with the VC500 and VirtualDub.

One of the capture PC's I built around XP has scavenged parts, discontinued motherboards and an AMD dual-core 2.2 GHz. Another is an old Dell Pentium 4 that someone discarded, and my original was a Pentium-3 1.5 GHz. I still use my minimal home builts for capture and much of the processing. One even has CPU hungry AfterEffects CS3 installed and works quite well. The main reason I moved to newer machines was for processing HD. The PC you described would be OK.

Among my remaining VCR's is an old Panasonic non-tbc PV-8664 with composite-only output. It's not the best but it has certain characteristics necessary for playback of some ornery damaged tapes. Composite output only, so I have an ES10 and an ES15 I used for pass-thru. They have pretty good y/c filters on their composite inputs and s-video output that gave decent captures. Another is a very good rebuilt PV-S4670 non-tbc SVHS that I use with pass-thru's. Neither VCR is as spiffy as my AG-1980 but the 1980 can be a wayward mistress, especially with incredibly noisy cheaply recorded tapes when the player's denoising looks too aggressive to me. Sometimes cleaning up the noise from lesser machines with more sophisticated Avisynth filters gives you a more realistic image, even if cleanup is a pain in the neck.

If you need some assurance that a less than good tape and a less than optimal player can still get yield better results with lossless post processing, an example was re-posted yesterday. Scroll down to near the bottom of this post for a description and links: New capture setup, input on AVT-8710 captures?. You'll find examples of even much worse sources in this forum. One of these days I'll have to make new examples of some of the worst garbage I've had to work with.

Last edited by sanlyn; 09-10-2016 at 08:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
The following users thank sanlyn for this useful post: skippy (09-10-2016)
  #10  
09-11-2016, 02:26 AM
lordsmurf's Avatar
lordsmurf lordsmurf is offline
Site Staff | Video
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 11,126
Thanked 1,978 Times in 1,705 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanlyn View Post
Let me first admit that I'm a little tough on DV for several reasons (color sensitivcity for one thing, lack of input level controls in most cases, and I find things like blown out highlights to be incredibly annoying). But I guess all video- and audiophiles have their druthers. I do appreciate your position, similar to Brits and Europeans who are desperate to find PAL SVHS machines when NTSC SVHS was more commonplace in North America. In the end you have to work with what you can get
That important thing to remember here is objective vs. subjective.

There are definitive drawbacks to 4:1:1 DV that affect several aspects of how that video looks. It's not subjective, and can be scientifically proven and demonstrated -- even to the common video layman.

MPEG / PAL DV, on the other hand, has some very subjective aspects to it.
Why? 4:2:0 -- and science (relating to human vision) actually dictates that it can be subjective!

That's the distinction here.

History also matters. Again, DV was never meant to be used for capturing. It was for shooting. Capturing was a later half-ass hack that was quickly seen as such, and replaced by MPEG. The only reason that MPEG was not available sooner was due to CPU (or hardware chipsets). DV came out during PIII, and MPEG encoding was P4.

Pre-DV/MPEG was uncompressed (SDI, mostly, using RAID) or lossless (the "poor man's" uncompressed, but eventually gained higher favor due to smaller size with near-equal quality. Lossless is actually NOT 100% perfectly uncompressed, as I argued on VH 10-15 years ago, but given other aspects, you'll almost never notice. We still use it, 20 years later, because "ain't broke, don't fix it". However, we do have DNxHD and ProRes422 if you want to try something newer.

- 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
The following users thank lordsmurf for this useful post: sanlyn (09-11-2016), skippy (09-11-2016)
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Removing harcoded Sub and signature losslessly lilycarolyn Edit Video, Audio 1 05-25-2016 06:08 AM
Capture analog using VirtualDub with camcorder passthrough? rf99 Capture, Record, Transfer 10 04-25-2016 12:40 AM
Will Sony Hi8 tape transfer through Digital8 camcorder? Churchmouse Capture, Record, Transfer 15 02-08-2016 01:45 PM
Hi8 vs Digital8 Sony camcorder for playback of tapes? via Email or PM Project Planning, Workflows 4 11-23-2013 03:11 PM
Digital8 capture via 1394 Plays fast X2?? cgcarter Capture, Record, Transfer 3 04-22-2008 04:42 PM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:23 AM