Go Back    Forum > Digital Video > Video Project Help > Restore, Filter, Improve Quality

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1  
02-23-2015, 05:21 PM
AnalogueHuman AnalogueHuman is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
A discussion

What is the qualitative difference between all the VHS transfer methods.

Whilst it is the aim to get as good a transfer as possible. How much is too much effort?

For example, I have a 4 head Sharp VHS payer circa 1997. It is in good condition and has not been used heavily.

I currently have it hooked up to a philips DVD recorder via scart and test played a commercial VHS film. The quality/playback looked perfect/very good for an old VHS.

If I record this to DVD an the highest quality Mpeg2 setting (HQ) so about 1.5 hours per disc, could this really be improved upon? I did not detect any type of distortion or requirement for an external TBC.

Is the requirement for a TBC dependent on the quality of each vhs tape i try to copy?

I assume the DVD recorder is employing some form of TBC itself.

--

Every method after this gets more complicated and more expensive. I also wonder what is the cost/benefit ratio involved in this.

1) I could hook it up to a computer and capture it to a HDD. Apart from minor colour correction and contrast changes, what more could this achieve? Could a better encoder be employed?

This is less of a question and more of a discussion.

At what point does the improvement become unnoticeable?
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Ads / Sponsors
 
Join Date: ∞
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #2  
02-23-2015, 06:02 PM
sanlyn sanlyn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,648
Thanked 1,307 Times in 982 Posts
This topic has been discussed to death, for years, here and elsewhere. The highest quality gear and methods for capturing VHS to a computer were determined a long time ago and tested ad nauseam. Recording VHS to DVD is not the best way. But if it looks good to you, enjoy. If other methods are too much effort for you, don't do it.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
02-23-2015, 07:13 PM
dpalomaki dpalomaki is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: VA
Posts: 1,694
Thanked 369 Times in 325 Posts
sanlyn hit the nail on the head. It is very much a personal thing. How good are your eyes, your playback/display system. How deep are your pockets, and how much time do you have to devote to DIY. No one else can make that call for you.

As to a TBC: in general one is needed, but with good recordings and good gear it may not be necessary to get an acceptable capture to DVD in all cases.

There are a number of image flaws that can and usually do crop up in analog video tape, especially VHS. With skill and the right tools they can be mitigated to yield a better looking and sounding image. This is more complicated than a bit of adjustment to brightness, contract, color and tint. This sort of processing works best on loss-lessly captured video files by avoiding the compounding of losses resulting from compression. (DVD files are not loss-less compression.)

If you and yours are happy with what you have recorded to DVD, declare victory and move on to something more fun. If you find this tape capture and restoration process fun - there is lots of information and help available on these forums. And if you need a better product, but don't want to devoted the time, consider hiring it out.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
02-23-2015, 09:15 PM
rocko's Avatar
rocko rocko is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 463
Thanked 14 Times in 14 Posts
About 5 years ago, I got into the methods discussed on this site, because I wasn't satisfied with the results from a "VHS to DVD" machine. Now keep in mind, I'm talking about digitizing/transferring my precious Home Recorded VHS tapes to DVD/Digital. The commercially made VHS transfers came out "ok", But my home recorded stuff came out too macro-blocked and horrible...good only maybe for "Safety copies"...But most all VHS looked great when played on VHS deck directly to TV. The first problem was, I wanted my home-made 1990's VHS's (Recorded on a so-so consumer grade VHS cam) to look like HD!... Never gonna happen!...But these tapes are Important enough to me, to go thru all the steps, trial and error, frustration, and $$$ to get the results I want...There is no Quick push-button remedy, as many on this site will attest to...How important are those tapes to you?, and how much time and effort are they worth to you?..I've been hacking away (off and on) for about 5 years now..and have tried the "Easy" USB,etc..and quickly returned it all, and followed the steps recommended here..Remember that a computer is digital,and it does not like a "dirty" analog VHS signal,and yes, the TBC process helps clean up that signal.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
02-26-2015, 05:10 AM
dpalomaki dpalomaki is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: VA
Posts: 1,694
Thanked 369 Times in 325 Posts
And compression, including DVD compression, does not like noise. Noise eats up bits that could be used for meaningful image. And most home video tape contains plenty of noise, especially video shot in poor light (that applies to both analog and digital video). A DVD made from noisy video will look worse that one made from a lower noise version of the same video.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
02-28-2015, 06:58 AM
AnalogueHuman AnalogueHuman is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hello,

Thanks for the replies.

Apologies for repeating an often asked question, which as you say, has been explored many times before and in much detail. What I think I was actually trying to find was an example comparing the quality difference of the same source footage transferred by:

1. DVD transfer
2. Basic usb capture device
3. Via a mini DV firewire camera
4. The best TBC VHS player, via firewire, captured and processed on PC
5. The best TBC player, external TBC unit, via capture card to PC.

As I said, it would be nice to see the qualitative difference between all these methods with the same source footage.

Here is my first attempt at the basic DVD transfer method.

Burned at the HQ setting. This is just a 40 second example of the footage.

This was from a Sharp (non-TBC as far as I am aware) VHS player straight to DVD. DVD was then ripped to HDD and then re-packaged as an .mp4 and uploaded to youtube.

http://youtu.be/c3V75uIw5Kw


Interested to know your thoughts. Obviously some further compression may have occurred when uploading to youtube, but you may be able to give an opinion of the quality based on my transfer method.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
02-28-2015, 05:16 PM
sanlyn sanlyn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,648
Thanked 1,307 Times in 982 Posts
Sorry, but no one can comment on UTube processing. It's completely off topic.

Equally beside the point is a DVD recording/lossless capture/bad capture/good capture that has been re-encoded to another format. Re-encodes are invalid for the kind of comparison you're looking for. Video encoding isn't like WinZIP or RAR.

Perhaps you'd like to change your topic to the effects of reencoding specific types of captures from analog sources?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
02-28-2015, 06:44 PM
AnalogueHuman AnalogueHuman is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks for yoru reply!

Maybe I was not clear. I was not asking about youtube processing. I had just uploaded my file to youtube for people to view and assess its overall quality for my first VHS transfer attempt.

I have now uploaded a small clip instead

I would appreciate thoughts on its overall quality. I have no context or reference as to what a very good, good, poor, very poor transfer looks like. As per my original post, I am trying to assess whether I should look at a more in depth process, or if the quality I am getting is actually very good.

This was transferred from a Sharp VHS player circa 1997 (non-TBC) straight to DVD via a separate recorder. I then ripped the DVD to the HDD and repackaged it as an .mpg.

Here is a small section, thoughts welcome.


Attached Files
File Type: mpg VHS 1_1.mpg (30.21 MB, 25 downloads)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
03-01-2015, 02:11 PM
sanlyn sanlyn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,648
Thanked 1,307 Times in 982 Posts
Well.....a new sample is appreciated, and it does have obvious and typical defects that wouldn't be present with better capture methods. But what would be the point of enumerating problems if (a) they seem to have escaped your attention, and/or (b) they don't matter, and/or (c) avoiding or repairing them, as you've stated, wouldn't be worth the effort? The sample itself has too much detail loss and compression artifacts for serious effort anyway, and appears to have been cropped, resized, and re-encoded to eliminate borders (looks that way to me, since 4:3 input from VHS won't usually populate more than 704-pixels wide anyway. But I could be wrong about that in this case).

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogueHuman View Post
If I record this to DVD an the highest quality Mpeg2 setting (HQ) so about 1.5 hours per disc
That's the highest quality setting on your recorder? It can't encode at higher 1-hour bitrates? The rapid camera movement and juggling-plus-zoom requires high bitrates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogueHuman View Post
Is the requirement for a TBC dependent on the quality of each vhs tape i try to copy?
It's a requirement, period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogueHuman View Post
I assume the DVD recorder is employing some form of TBC itself.
Apparently it does, but it seems somewhat minimal. Your sample has obvious horizontal and vertical ripple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogueHuman View Post
At what point does the improvement become unnoticeable?
If captured using the "best" recommended players and methods, it should be noticeable when first captured.

Others will likely have a look at the sample and will likely see what I see. Or maybe not? Since you asked for details.....

Your Philips recorder is somewhat unlike most DVD recorders, the original field order priority has apparently been reversed from that of your original. But maybe you had it set up that way.

There are signs of crude interlace problems, split and broken lines and edges, and annoying line twitter. Your DVD recorder might advertise that is has a "tbc", but it didn't accomplish that much -- there's visible horizontal and vertical jitter and ripple (can't be repaired after capture, at least not without serious filtering). The re-encode has noisy compression artifacts and blocky distortion even when the camera and objects are fairly steady, and textures in large objects such as solid walls have mushy noise and distortion. There are some oversharpening artifacts, DCT ringing, some black edge halos, and several dropouts. The audio is encoded as MPEG-1 Layer2, an obsolete format designed for PC's, inferior to Dolby AC3.

The original video might have been overexposed, but at any rate the capture was made at inappropriate IRE levels for the material. Highlights are blown out, gamma is too high and color looks anemic. Bright luma and chroma values were permanently clipped during capture (cannot be repaired), and chroma values extend beyond the valid range for PC, TV, or Web display, and are clipped as well. This makes it difficult to restore a realistic dynamic range, so color and contrast correction done later will not produce a very wide-range image.

Most of its defects can't be repaired. The few that can would require another encode and more quality loss.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
03-01-2015, 02:45 PM
AnalogueHuman AnalogueHuman is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Interesting....

What is apparent to me is that the re-encode is worse than the DVD rip. How am I to upload a representative example if the re-encode always results in compression artifacts etc...

I re-encoded at what I thought were the highest quality settings (I did crop the edges as you suspected).....I shall experiment some more.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
03-01-2015, 03:50 PM
lordsmurf's Avatar
lordsmurf lordsmurf is online now
Site Staff | Video
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 13,501
Thanked 2,447 Times in 2,079 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogueHuman View Post
What is the qualitative difference between all the VHS transfer methods.
Define "qualitative".

I often see people suggesting that video quality is "subjective", but it's rarely the case when discussing analog conversions. You essentially have errors, or a lack of errors. And there is nothing subjective about errors. Most analog errors are highly distracting, and make the content a nuisance to watch.

Quote:
Whilst it is the aim to get as good a transfer as possible. How much is too much effort?
It depends on the error. The goal is to always make it, at very least, enjoyable to watch. Sometimes perfection is possible, but the effort required is too involved, too costly, or too time-consuming. And understand when I say "too costly", I mean thousands of dollars -- not the price of a good workflow (S-VHS VCR, TBC, quality capture card).

Quote:
For example, I have a 4 head Sharp VHS payer circa 1997. It is in good condition and has not been used heavily.
Sharp VHS VCRs from around 1996-1998 were pretty good units. But they're still not S-VHS VCRs, and still allow timing and chroma errors to leak through. Those VCRs are best saved for tapes that are stubborn to track, or require that VCR (due to it having misalignment, if it exists). Yes, that Sharp does track better than the Panasonic AG1980P!

But since you're PAL, I doubt you'd have issues. PAL doesn't have SLP/EP. So for you, it has no use.

Quote:
I currently have it hooked up to a philips DVD recorder via scart and test played a commercial VHS film.
If I record this to DVD an the highest quality Mpeg2 setting (HQ) so about 1.5 hours per disc, could this really be improved upon?
That doesn't mean much. Philips is just a brand name. Which specific model was it? That will reveal either who made it, or at very least what components are inside. And that's what matters.

[quote]The quality/playback looked perfect/very good for an old VHS.
This always annoys me. Most people have low expections for tapes. But it's because they've never seen how good VHS-sourced video can look. Most likely you're still looking at a fuzzy and hazy tapes -- maybe even wiggly. You've never seen a properly sharpened VHS signal without chroma noisy, and with timing restored.

Quote:
I did not detect any type of distortion or requirement for an external TBC.
You may have tricked yourself into ignoring glaring tape issues because it's just "old VHS". I'd need to see samples, to analyze the issues. In theory, you should be able to watch an HD TV broadcast, and notice no differences -- aside from a mild resolution reduction, and the obvious non-16:9 crop.

Quote:
Is the requirement for a TBC dependent on the quality of each vhs tape i try to copy?
I assume the DVD recorder is employing some form of TBC itself.
DVD recorders have a very weak form of TBC -- so weak that it often doesn't do anything. Rarely can a DVD recorder TBC clean the image (internal VCR line/field TBC) or clean the signal (external frame sync TBC)

Quote:
Every method after this gets more complicated and more expensive. I also wonder what is the cost/benefit ratio involved in this.
It depends on the # of tapes, and the end goals of the conversion project.

Quote:
1) I could hook it up to a computer and capture it to a HDD. Apart from minor colour correction and contrast changes, what more could this achieve?
A DVD recorder is an extremely limited workflow. You can essentially turn a VHS tape into a DVD. Most DVD recorders make the tape look worse than the original! Few do not.

The computer method allows for more advanced restoration.

Quote:
Could a better encoder be employed?
Yes. Even many freeware MPEG-2 encoders tend to do better than most DVD recorders.

Quote:
At what point does the improvement become unnoticeable?
It depends on what is being done. If you're just putting a tape in a plain VHS VCR, and hitting record on a DVD recorder, then tons of room for noticeable improvement. If you're processing the video with a page-long Avisynth script, then you may be nearing the point of diminishing returns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dpalomaki View Post
sanlyn hit the nail on the head. It is very much a personal thing. How good are your eyes, your playback/display system.
No.

I reject this notion. When it comes to analog tapes, VHS especially, we're usually talking about the presence of video errors -- most of which are very distracting. We're not talking about mild color tweaks that makes you debate dark magenta vs. light purple.

Quote:
As to a TBC: in general one is needed, but with good recordings and good gear it may not be necessary to get an acceptable capture to DVD in all cases.
Correct. It's needed probably 95%+ of the time. But not always.
I'd also mention that those that think they are the exception are usually just missing or overlooking an error that screams "use a TBC!"

Quote:
There are a number of image flaws that can and usually do crop up in analog video tape, especially VHS. With skill and the right tools they can be mitigated to yield a better looking and sounding image. This is more complicated than a bit of adjustment to brightness, contract, color and tint. This sort of processing works best on loss-lessly captured video files by avoiding the compounding of losses resulting from compression. (DVD files are not loss-less compression.)
^ This.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogueHuman View Post
This was from a Sharp (non-TBC as far as I am aware) VHS player straight to DVD. DVD was then ripped to HDD and then re-packaged as an .mp4 and uploaded to youtube.
http://youtu.be/c3V75uIw5Kw
(1) Mask VHS video for Youtube. Viewing overscan is ugly. Do NOT crop it!
(2) Youtube reprocesses video*, which makes it hard to give feedback on a VHS conversion.

* Even if you converted it to MP4 yourself, it's still reprocessed (and usually deinterlaced).

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogueHuman View Post
I have now uploaded a small clip instead
It's deinterlaced and cropped. Why?

I see a huge dropped frame issue. Either the reprocessing messed it up, or you need TBC. Or both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogueHuman View Post
How am I to upload a representative example if the re-encode always results in compression artifacts etc...
Cut a piece off with a non-reencoding MPEG editor. Don't re-encode it. Womble is my favorite payware tool.

- 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
  #12  
03-01-2015, 04:46 PM
sanlyn sanlyn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Carolina and NY, USA
Posts: 3,648
Thanked 1,307 Times in 982 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogueHuman View Post
How am I to upload a representative example if the re-encode always results in compression artifacts etc...
There's lordsmurf's suggestion to use Womble. For MPEG and h264 I use TMPgenc Smart Renderer. Freebies include mpg2cut2 and DGIndex. Can make cut samples from VOB or MPG directly with no re-encoding except at the immediate GOP cut area. You can avoid even smart rendering with those apps by cutting only on key frames (which DGIndex does), which would amount to a true 1:1 copy of the sample.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
03-02-2015, 07:26 PM
AnalogueHuman AnalogueHuman is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks for all the great advice.

I have actually discovered another issue before I upload a non re-encoded example. When doing a 1:1 decryption of the DVD and renaming .VOB files to .mpeg I have noticed that the 1:1 rip suffers from ripple horizontally across the centre of the frame (especially when the camera pans). Is this to do with the setting on DVD Decrypter? The DVD plays fine (no ripple) on its own. Any ideas?

In addition:

I have discovered a local VHS transfer company which seem to employ all the hardware and methodology you suggest should be used as part of the process. They say they play the tape in a broadcast quality VCR and then via a TBC and colour correction hardware before capturing and saving to dvd and/or .avi.

I therefore intend to transfer the same tape using their method to see what improvement I can expect.

I will of course upload the resultant transfer here for your assessment.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Seeking advice for VHS transfers (Equipment & Capture Methods) quarkz Project Planning, Workflows 18 01-08-2013 11:31 PM
Quick cheatsheet/shortlist for VHS to DVD methods? rocko General Discussion 4 08-06-2012 11:21 PM
Questions about cleaning VCR heads? Proper methods? fuzzblaster Capture, Record, Transfer 1 08-31-2010 07:44 PM
Free methods to save video from an educational site? SailsOnBlue Encode, Convert for streaming 6 03-25-2010 03:51 PM
Current copying methods, as of Nov. 2005 admin Copy DVDs, Duplicate, Replicate 0 11-17-2005 03:41 PM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:09 AM