VHS videos to digital, MP4 with Sony SLV-R1000?

[galfert]

Hello,

I have a Sony SLV-R1000 and I tried using VirtualDub2 with a ION Video 2 PC adapter with terrible results. I've since learned by reading this forum that I need a TBC. Rather than get a new VCR with TBC built in I would like to add a TBC device to continue using my Sony S-VHS VCR.

My computer is as follows:
Lenovo ThinkPad laptop T470s with USB-C Thunderbolt 3 port so I should be able to use a Thunderbolt 2-to-3 adapter so that I could then use a Thunderbolt 2 device like the ADVC-100 / 110 unless there is a better solution.

I have the following questions:

1.) Should I just get a ADVC-100 or 110?

2.) Is there not now in the year 2022 some USB-C / Thunderbolt 3 device that does the analog capture with built in TBC?

3.) Is there some other device or solution to consider? ADS Pyro A/V Link? is that better than the ADVC-100 / 110?

My only purpose is to convert 30 or 40 family and home VHS tapes to MP4. I plan on using VirtualDub2 to capture, then deinterlace and resize to 720 to get 60fps and finally Handbrake to convert AVI to MP4. Then I can share some of these videos on YouTube at 60fps. I want decent video quality and synced audio.

[latreche34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by galfert

2.) Is there not now in the year 2022 some USB-C / Thunderbolt 3 device that does the analog capture with built in TBC?

There is but no USB-C, you will need a USB-3 adapter, They are available new but expensive, Used ones show up online like eBay but very rarely:

https://www.singmai.com/Modules/sm03.html

https://www.markertek.com/product/en...caAkh9EALw_wcB

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...o_Digital.html

720 is a dead resolution now, makes no sense since there is no native displays that support it, For youtube use 1440x1080 for better quality.

[galfert]

Wow!
Sticker shock! I was hoping to stay below $500. Otherwise I don't see why I shouldn't just get a used VCR with TBC built in.

Only reason for 720 is because of keeping file size in check and it speeds up processing/encoding. I see no reason for 1080 when it won't improve the quality. YouTube requires 720 for 60fps otherwise it forces 30fps. I'd keep 480 if it allowed me to do 60fps. Am I wrong?

I appreciate the help. Hopefully there are other ideas.

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by galfert

I have a Sony SLV-R1000

Non-TBC, right? Lower end, better than plain random VHS, but not with-TBC JVC/Panasonic.

Quote:

and I tried using VirtualDub2

No, do not use, known capture issues, use VirtualDub 1.9.x, not the "2" fork.

Quote:

with a ION Video 2 PC adapter with terrible results.

Low end Chinese junk, ION is a Chinese rebadger, infamous for crap of all ilk, not just video.

Quote:

I've since learned by reading this forum that I need a TBC. Rather than get a new VCR with TBC built in I would like to add a TBC device to continue using my Sony S-VHS VCR.

That's not how it works.
VCR has line TBC.
Line TBC cleans the image. Prevent wiggles, overall lousy quality video.
Frame TBC cleans the signal. Prevent dropped frames, audio, sync, etc.
You need both.

Quote:

1.) Should I just get a ADVC-100 or 110?

No. DV massively degrades NTSC video, tosses out 50%+ color data, looks soft, cooked colors, blocks, etc, worse than DVD. It's a 1990s format.

Quote:

2.) Is there not now in the year 2022 some USB-C / Thunderbolt 3 device that does the analog capture with built in TBC?

No. (latreche mentioned some SDI devices, but different animal.)

Quote:

3.) Is there some other device or solution to consider? ADS Pyro A/V Link? is that better than the ADVC-100 / 110?

Not ADS, no.
Various USB cards work best, such as ATI 600, others mentioned in forum. But before you run to eBay, start randomly buying things, realize that many are incomplete. You must buy carefully, not haphazardly.

Quote:

My only purpose is to convert 30 or 40 family and home VHS tapes to MP4. I plan on using VirtualDub2 to capture, then deinterlace and resize to 720 to get 60fps and finally Handbrake to convert AVI to MP4. Then I can share some of these videos on YouTube at 60fps. I want decent video quality and synced audio.

You must be careful with "60p" (59.94p). There can be ugly vibration artifacts, especially anything with on-screen clocks, dates, counters.

VirtualDub, not VirtualDub2.

Handbrake is limited newbieware. Really crappy, gets confused too easy with sources, bad AR, etc. Use Hybrid, not that. Hybrid also has QTGMC deinterlacer built in, Handbrake has old bad methods.

Otherwise, workflow fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by latreche34

720 is a dead resolution now, makes no sense since there is no native displays that support it, For youtube use 1440x1080 for better quality.

I'm not certain this is accurate. But at a perfect 2x upscale, moot argument, fine settings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by galfert

Wow!
Sticker shock! I was hoping to stay below $500. Otherwise I don't see why I shouldn't just get a used VCR with TBC built in.

Again, not how it works. But you can add line with ES10/15 as TBC(ish), but there are drawbacks, quality hits, and it has non-TBC frame sync. So frames can still drop, audio skew, etc. Best to chase with weaker TBC. Or better VCr, just the weak frame. Either way, it will be more than $500, but the investment is temporary. Buy it, use it, resell it. The gear holds value, you don't buy and toss in a drawer when done. Unless you buy junk that nobody wants, of course.

Quote:

Only reason for 720 is because of keeping file size in check and it speeds up processing/encoding. I see no reason for 1080 when it won't improve the quality. YouTube requires 720 for 60fps otherwise it forces 30fps. I'd keep 480 if it allowed me to do 60fps. Am I wrong?

Not wrong ... aside from saying "60p". It's not 60. It's 59.94 for NTSC.

[latreche34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by galfert

I see no reason for 1080 when it won't improve the quality. YouTube requires 720 for 60fps otherwise it forces 30fps. I'd keep 480 if it allowed me to do 60fps. Am I wrong?

I don't think you can get 60fps with 720p, youtube has moved that limit to 1080p, The other thing and from personal extensive testing the compression artifacts are way lower in 1080 vs 720, 720 is now SD per Youtube's algorithm. Of course none of this matter for you master files that should be kept in their lossless AVI interlaced 480x720.

[Hushpower]

Quote:

Only reason for 720 is because of keeping file size in check

Resolution, in itself, does not affect the file size. The only determinants of file size are bitrate and running time. A 720x480 file is the same size as a 3840x2160 (4K) file at the same bitrate.

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by latreche34

I don't think you can get 60fps with 720p, youtube has moved that limit to 1080p,

Worth investigating. But again, 59.94fps is not always wise anyway, side effects, artifacts.

Quote:

Of course none of this matter for you master files that should be kept in their lossless AVI interlaced 480x720.

Correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hushpower

Resolution, in itself, does not affect the file size. The only determinants of file size are bitrate and running time. A 720x480 file is the same size as a 3840x2160 (4K) file at the same bitrate.

Well, yes and no. With H.264, CRF is often used now, essentially automatic bitrate selection, not in your control. So higher res CRF will be bigger, lower lower. The idea of bitrate selection is somewhat archaic now, mostly optical disc usage, not streaming.

[galfert]

Very informative conversation and I've learned a lot. I did know it was 59.94 for NTSC but I just thought saying 60 was acceptable for conversation knowing that for the actual workflow process it was 59.94. I guess you can't be sure what is in people's heads if when they say 60 they know it to really be otherwise or not.

All else sounds good. Thank you all for your input. I guess I see now that the proper solution is to invest well in some better equipment, then get the project done. Then turn around and resell the hardware to recover the majority of the investment. But first I have to get some honey-do list items done and then I'll be able to rot away guilt-free to get this project done. So I'll need to temporarily shelve this project for some time. At least I feel I have found a solution and I'm glad I asked for help.

I really appreciate the tip on VirtualDub 1.9.x and not 2. I saw so much talk in the forums and YouTube videos on using VirtualDub and then when I went to download it I found the 2 fork and I automatically thought that it would be better even though nobody was actually using the 2 fork. I just thought the tutorials were not current to the release of the 2 fork. Reminded me of the days when Dolby C came out and how it wasn't better than Dolby B for purchased albums as they were meant to be played with Dolby B, and Dolby C was only if you were recording your own stuff to the proper higher grade tapes....not exactly the same thing but it just reminded me of that situation. I just remember having to educate friends to not use Dolby C for prerecorded purchased tapes and to use Dolby B instead. I guess the same can be said for Windows 10 as I've also read some posts where people are sometimes recommending Windows 7 instead for better driver compatibility with some hardware, but maybe that has passed now that Windows 10 has matured and perhaps driver support has caught up, especially now that we have Windows 11. There is a lot to keep straight....Big lesson is that a project is never as simple as it seems if you want it done right.

[lordsmurf]

The 2 fork was for input/output, and it's decent at that. But it has new issues, filters don't work correctly anymore, capturing actually induces dropped frames more than not. I've reported these issues to the dev, but he never replies to me in public or private. Same for others, acknowledgement at best, no fixes. Typical dev, right?

VirtualDub 1.10 added issues not in 1.9, FM fork based on 1.10, FM renamed to 2 for revision that got worse.

Honestly, aside from
- the x64 version for use with Avisynth x64
- converting to ProRes422 knockoff
I have no use for VirtualDub2. Kind of crappy due to messing up filters, messing up capture.

Anyway, you are correct here...

Analog video conversion really is about the quality of the hardware. Not random junk from Goodwill, Craigslist, or even eBay. And not Chinese USB junk from Amazon. All that gives you is misery, and lack of quality, at the same time.