Captured file sizes from Hi8 tapes is way too big.

[Sac John]

Question for LS and any other knowledgeable analog-capturers.

I’ve been off-and on again trying to get this box of 400+ Hi8 tapes digitized. Seems every time I try, there’s a new issue that throws me and makes me kick the project down the road again a few months. I’m still only a handful of tapes into this project.

I’m on an iMac, and I bought a TBC and A/D capture card from Lord Smurf. The hardware has worked properly. LS also recommended VideoGlide software, which I used and which seems to do the job properly.

LS also recommended the quality settings that I should use for VideoGlide. I don’t remember the specific terminology and numbers at the moment, but I believe it was the highest quality settings available in VideoGlide - which would be fine except one two-hour Hi8 tape results in a whopping 136 GB MOV file. I intend to digitize all 400 tapes to prevent any further deterioration and then get down to editing at some point later in life, long after the tapes are all digitized. But at the settings I'm using, it will take close to ten 5TB drives to store all the tapes! (And then another ten to create backups!)

I also suspect that the top of the line quality settings I'm using are more than is needful for Hi8. ie, Shouldn’t I be able to use lesser quality settings and the image quality would still be indistinguishable from these mega-large files? Seems like using top-quality capture settings for Hi8 is like chartering a 747 to transport 10 people, no?

(These are all my own home movies, not a commercial or broadcast project.)

Can LS or anyone recommend settings for VideoGlide that are appropriate for getting decent quality from these Hi8 tapes without creating mega-large files?

Thanks.

[latreche34]

h.264 in high quality compression setting and at 4:2:2 will not amass to 136GB/Hour, Maybe 6-10GB tops, You're doing something wrong. Lossless AVI files can be that big though, if you're willing to save them all as well then you don't have a choice but to stack up on HDD's. Unless you are capturing directly into that format, At the end it's your decision if you don't want to save high quality copies of your tapes.

[Sac John]

Thanks for the reply, latreche34. So is h.264 in high quality compression setting and at 4:2:2 the settings you use when capturing analog tape? Are you happy with the final uncut footage that you can then later edit? (I obviously know nothing about capture settings.)

VideoGlide (my capture software) doesn't seem to open unless the capture device is plugged in and active - and I have it buried in a box at the moment. I'll hook it up shortly and I can share exactly the settings I'm using to arrive at these jumbo file sizes. Literally a 136 GB mov file for the last 120 minute tape I captured, using LS's recommended settings.

Of course I want to save quality digitized versions of my tapes. I'm just not sure if the highest possible setting is necessary to achieve that. Back when I used to encode audio CDs, (back when disk space was still expensive), I learned that there is virtually no difference between the highest possible settings and mid-way settings - as virtually no human ear could discern the difference in blind tests. Once the settings get below a certain point, then of course one can tell. But that point at which one could hear the compromise in sound quality was pretty darn low - a far stretch from top quality settings. And the difference in resulting file sizes was substantial.

(I always enjoyed how, on audiophile forums, people were always referred to blind online tests when they would argue for the need for higher resolutions. Inevitably, all these folks insisting on top of the line settings couldn't hear the difference between their large audio files and much smaller compressed ones.)

I'm thinking video capture is probably the same way? That, say, a 40 GB file from a 2 hour Hi8 tape is, within reason, just as visually complete as a 120 GB file, assuming the tighter settings are well chosen?

I'm happy to be corrected if someone can explain it to me otherwise.

[latreche34]

No, h.264 is not for editing, I'm in a PC environment, I capture AVI losslessly compressed to HuffYUV and encode later, My personal collection of valuable tapes does not exceed 10 so storage is not a problem, For other people, if they don't want the lossless copy I keep it until they are satisfied with the transfer then delete it, Youtube stuff I don't keep the lossless copies, I do keep single copies of the YT channel videos as compressed by downloading them back to the computer.

[nicholasserra]

Open the file in VLC and check the codec. Maybe you're capturing to some uncompressed format. PC based lossless capture in huffyuv or utvideo is 30ish gigs an hour. So about half what you're seeing.

Anyway, 400 tapes is a lot, any way you store capture files. Could h264 it if you're happy with the quality and discard the capture files. Most people wouldn't recommend, but if you don't have the space...

[latreche34]

Yeah, If I have that many tapes I wouldn't be concerned about keeping the lossless files unless it's a paid project that pays for itself, I would just go for the highest setting h.264 @ 4:2:2 from a lossless capture.

[Sac John]

Thanks for the replies, latreche34 and nicholasserra.

I have yet to dig out the conversion card, and the software doesn't open without it. But the capture specs were LordSmurf's recommendations, so I assume they are top of the list lossless.

I'm just wondering if that's necessary if I'm going to edit later on. As I wrote, I hoped to capture all 400 tapes and then edit at my leisure in the coming years. But at the current capture specs, 400 tapes takes up unreasonable space.

Since a finished edited home movie shouldn't take up more than 3-4 GB, if that, I had this notion that I could capture at some spec just higher than that (and at a significantly smaller file size) and still have a finished edited project that looks as good as old 480p can. Seems kind of overkill to capture to a 136 GB MOV file, then edit down and compress to just a few Gigs.

By the way, I've never edited captured video before, so I don't really know what I'm talking about. I just brought 3-4 GB as that's what high quality 1080p 90 minute movies size out at. So I assume my movies will be that size or smaller after all the editing and compression is done.

Back when I used a Macrosystem video editing appliance, I learned that the machine captured video at close to the same compressed size as the finished product. So captured footage was not a large file. I still don't get why I'm now capturing 480p at these mega-sized lossless specs when it's going to get drastically reduced after editing.

[traal]

A 2 hour HuffYUV capture should be only about 60-80 GB. Even at 80 GB/tape, you can fit 200 of them on a single 16TB hard drive. I think your 136 GB capture is not only lossless but also uncompressed and that's why it takes up more space than it needs to. (HuffYUV is compressed but lossless.)

Modern lossy video codecs such as H.264 throw away information you can't see. But restoration involves making things you can't see visible again, so if you're working from a lossy capture file, that information is already gone. You should only convert to H.264 after restoration.

[latreche34]

Depends on what kind of editing, If only cutting scenes out, you can do that with a frame accurate software out of a h.264 file with near lossless results, It just rearranges the frame pockets, But if color correction and other stuff that require rendering is intended it will be a lossy process.