Does anyone else see the video stuttering problem that I see in ths clip? or am I just being too perfectionist? Ive seen this in a lot of video conversions posted on websites, from old film conversions, all the way up to modern HD....Just wonderig if my settings are correct for VHS Capture?..plus heres my current Capture PC configuration

my capture setup:
-Mitsubishi HSHD2000U W/TBC
-AV Toolbox 8710
-Windows XP dual core, never connected to internet.
-Sound blaster SB (Live?) Value
-ATI 9600 XT
-ATI MMC/TV Capture software

I didn't see any stutter.
Your huffyuv threshold configuration is incorrect. For interlaced video it should be 288 lines, not 480. Perhaps your specific system setup has a tough time with huffyuv interlaced when you have it set up for 480 lines progressive. VLC player couldn't decode it properly, which can also occur with other media players and inappropriate huffyuv threshold settings.

I see zero stutter. That's a really nice capture. :)

Leave Huffyuv default, leave it alone.

@sanlyn: 480 vs 288 shouldn't make a difference. The interlace threshold is "at least" that number, so x480 will be interlaced captures.

Why 640x480? Software use to play nicer, and it was often standard. Not so much anymore. I'd rather go 720x480, and capture rectangular pixels. In theory 640x480 is just 720 square, but it's never quite that easy.

The more likely issue is the system has jerky preview (so does mine), or play back is jerky (old CPU hating Huffyuv). Also use MPC for Huffyuv, not VLC. VLC is too temperamental these days. It hates MPEG-2 now as well.

Thank you both Sanlyn and Lordsmurf, Just to clarify, I Capture with system listed above, preview capped .avi files with stock ATI Media Player on same XP system,(They play just fine,little to no jerkyness), then copy files to external HD, then copy .avi files again to Win 7 "Video" PC.,where I have Virtual Dub and VLC for storage, editing, viewing converting, and uploading. I notice the Jerky,Stuttering on Win 7 system with VLC, but Ive always suspected the low cost Video Card I have on Win 7 system,(Nvidia 8400GS) but also notice the same jerkyness/studdering on video after converting/uploading to Website, while viewing both converted VHS/film, and modern HD video on Android/Chrome browser, which I attribute to browser problems. I will take Lordsmurfs advice however on setting my .avi cap preset to 720x480 to create rectangular pixels, which conform more to today's 16x9 formats?, plus remembering from the early guides that pixels are rectangular anyway?

It has nothing to do with 16x9, just players/NLEs/etc (software). They used to want or like 640, and that became 720 within the past 10 years. It expects 720, not others (when MPEG).

640x480 was square.
720x480 was not. See also 704x480.

Thank you!

Thanks Lordsmurf, what I really meant is: Will 720x480 cap .avi look a little better, and more rectangular, after being converted to mp4, uploaded, encoded and viewed on media sharing sites, as opposed to my current 640x480 cap settings. If so, I have a lot of re-capturing/converting/re-uploading to do, but no problem doing that if it's worth it :salute:

No. 720x480 will look stretched. Round wheels will look like sideways eggs, people will look fat. Is that what you want?

Most websites such as UTube mount square-pixel video. If you capped 640x480 you already have square pixel 4:3 (which, by the way, is not a square frame.....the physical image ratio is 1.33333:1, or 1.3 times wider than the height). If you submit 720x480 (3:2) to UTube and such, they will re-encode it anyway and as square-pixel, so your original 4:3 image will not display as 13333:1 but as 1.5:1 on display and will look stretched. If it is interlaced, they will use the cheapest, quickest, worst deinterlace possible, discarding alternate frames and thus throwing away 50% of temporal resolution (motion smoothness) and 50% of spatial resolution (definition). To prevent discarding frames, deinterlace to double frame rate with QTGMC and submit as square pixel video at 640x480. Look into the format requirements of websites before submitting and process your 640x480 as required. YouTube will usually accept square-pixel double-frame-rate (60 or 50 fps) 640x480.

If you have square-pixel 640x480 and try to make a DVD or BluRay standard def disc, you'll get "invalid format" errors. Those two formats are never square pixel, always anamorphic, and are interlaced at 29.97 fps NTSC. If you want one of those formats final, deinterlace and resize to 704x480 with a better rresi8zer such as Spline36Resize, re-interlace, then encode with 4:3 display ratio flags, which any DVD or BluRay encoder can do. For 16:9 widescreen standard definition, the required size for most DVD/BluRay authoring programs is 720x480. Note that mp4 containers are not valid for those formats.

What you are saying about having to do a lot of capturing reveals that you didn't look ahead and are unfamiliar with different standard formatting requirements. Most newcomers make the same mistake, capturing wholesale for hours at a time without following a workflow to completion, thus capturing themselves into a corner. Fortunately lossless media is flexible and undamaged enough to avoid things like re-encoding and to avoid the worst effects of lossy resizing -- if your captures had been lossy codecs you'd be up ye ole creek without ye olde paddle.

"There is Iron in your words" Sanlyn, (To Quote a famouse Clint Eastwood movie)...Sounds like I have been capturing/converting/sharing, in the proper aspect ratio,My Passion is sharing Railroad videos I filmed in 1990's on a specialty website called Trainorders.com. Dont have time to share details,but hope this post helps others

Hmm, didn't mean to sound hard. I'm just reporting what I see, and we see these methods all the time. But you made the right choice to start with lossless capture. Had you started with lossy codecs like MPEG, DV, MJPEG, etc., the result of resizing/encoding would have been a double whammy quality loss. It's also a good idea that you do your own deinterlacing lest you risk YouTube's quick and dirty way of doing it. Fortunately if you still have your lossless original you can create versions in other formats without getting into lossy multigeneration problems. Since your main goal was 1:1 square pixel web posting and PC only playback, which we finally know to be the case, with lossless media you could have gone either way (640x480 without resizing, or 720x480 with very mild resizing losses using lossless media). As it is, you went with square pixel 4:3. All I'm saying is that if you want standard formats like DVD or BluRay, your 640x480 will have to be re-processed correctly for clean results.

720x480 is rectangle pixels. That's DVD and DV standard. Square is 3x2, but the 720x480 is rectangle, so it's 4x3. You get about 80 pixels extra resolve, though VHS won't benefit from it (being under 350 anyway). The entire reason for 720 over 640 is the NLE, encoders and editors want it.

For web video, you resize to square 640x480 on export. But the capture and pre-final product should be 720. Years ago, 640 was fine.

640 captures can still be fine, you just have to know your software. Many will take 640, upsize to 720, and then you export back down to 640. That can introduce aliasing artifacts that you don't want.'

This is almost semantics without you grabbing a few test captures to see what I mean. Or if it even applies to you.

Given all your other issues, and source challenges, I wouldn't overthink this too much. Lower priority for you.

No worries Sanlyn! The quote was referring to the Indian chief, talking to (Outlaw Josie Whales?)..meaning "there is truth in your words".:wink2:

It does make a difference, as can be seen in the two threads where he ended up with bad decodes on other systems.

The threshold is > not >=. Setting 480 means that 480 will be coded as progressive. It's still lossless: the interlacing will remain intact, but the compression ratio will probably suffer, and as seen in his threads, such captures can't be read by standard Huffyuv.

http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/video-capture/6620-test-avi-file-3.html#post38976
http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/video-capture/6620-test-avi-file-4.html#post38987
http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/video-capture/6620-test-avi-file-3.html#post38937