Capturing NTSC-J considerations?
 

After struggling with both VirtualDub and Amarec with bad results (VDub audio sync does not work whatsover with my GV-USB2, and Amarec results are sub-par), I've opted to use OBS which has so far given me the best results.

Some general questions bugging me:

I'm capturing Japanese VHS. What is the benefit of capturing at 29.97fps vs 59.94fps? Also what difference does it make if capturing in 30fps or 60fps?

Am I right to say that it's better to capture interlaced for preservation, then afterwards if you want to upload to YouTube, you would re-encode the video via something like avisynth deinterlaced?

All these VHS tapes have been recorded in EP mode, meaning there is 6 hours of footage per tape. Is there anything I should be aware of before capturing?

Because of of the length of each video, I don't really want to have giant raw .avi files taking up space. I'm capturing and encoding in x264. Any issues with this?

First, for a Japanese tape you need a Japanese VCR with the correct IRE level, You can correct that in the capture software but I'm not aware that consumer capture cards have IRE compensation, You can tweak the gain but IRE is slightly different from the gain in the way it works, IRE is basically a reference level that works not only on the video signal but for timing signal as well. Capture devices that have IRE compensation apply it on both video and timing bursts, Usually found on pro capture devices, IRE mismatch can cause timing problems, this is probably why you are having problems with vdub and AmarecTV.

Second, EP doesn't get very much along with encoding on the fly, The artifacts that result from such a combination are not pleasant to the trained eye, but if you are happy with the results, that's all what matter.

There's a few TBCs that have IRE input adjustment, and I actually have right now, not yet listed in the marketplace.

NTSC-J has some fiddly needs as a format, so you have to carefully plan out the workflow gear. You can't just grab random VCRs and capture cards, no TBCs, and expect any results.

OBS "works" because it generally treats the capture cards like a webcam, and essentially screen grabs what it sees. So dropped frames are simply not reported and ignored, not prevented in any way. No magic there.

You cannot capture the 59.94, it must be 29.97 interlaced. You can deinterlace/seperate later. Attempting to capture 59.94 will just make a mess.

I never agree with this sort of flippant comment. If all you eat is dog food, imagine what you'll think when you finally try hamburger or steak. You don't know what you don't know. Knowledge changes everything.

Because a lot of members come with a mindset that they don't need big files or don't need different gear than they already have, If you try to explain to them the dog food analogy they just start to change attitude, I've already given my opinion about low quality VHS and encoding on the fly that it is unpleasant to the eye, That should tell everything he needs to know, If he decides to move forward with that, there is nothing I can do.

FYI my setup:
PAL: JVC HR-S7600 (includes TBC) via S-Video -> GV-USB2 -> PC
NTSC-J: Victor HR-VX200 (includes TBC) via S-Video -> GV-USB2 -> PC

As per my previous thread, I've had no luck using VirtualDub, no matter what VCR hardware (TBC or not) the audio will always go out sync. This could specifically be due to the drivers, however AmaRec and OBS to not have any issues, so I'm putting it down completely to a VirtualDub and GV-USB2 compatability issue.

My mindset is that I don't need to store lots of enormous files, and generally I do not want to over-burden my computer while capturing as it struggles at lossless.

The first mistake I made while capturing all these files at 50fps (PAL) and 59.94fps (NTSC-J) deinterlaced on the fly, when I shoud have captured in 25fps (PAL) and 29.97fps (NTSC-J) interlaced, then after created deinterlaced @ double frame rate.

Second mistake was using FFmpeg ALAC (24-bit) for audio, which isn't compatible with a lot of post-production software, I'm now going to switch over FFmpeg FLAC (16-bit).
My video is x264 at 5000kps which I'm quite happy with, but I'd love to hear any suggestions for other high quality lossy codecs.

The line TBC inside S-VHS VCRs is not the frame TBC that I'm referring to. Vastly different in function. The reason your audio was losing sync is because you lack frame TBC.

- line TBC fixes the image quality
- frame TBC fixes the signal (prevents dropped frames, audio sync loss, etc)
You need both.

AmaRecTV and OBS are streamcasting/"broadcasting" software, and they "dont lose sync" due to how the video is handled. There is loss, but you're apparently just not seeing it yet. OBS doesn't even properly record from the capture card, but instead re-records from a preview display layer (essentially screengrabbing). It has nothing to do with VirtualDub, GV-USB2, or compatibility.

I mean, if you can point me to any affordable recommendations for a frame TBC, and you can guarantee that it will fix my issues, I would purchase it :congrats:

If you want something useable with relatively little fuss and don't mind a bit of horizontal color loss (potentially), the ADVC-110 has a dip switch settings on it to set for PAL/NTSC and 0IRE vs 7.5IRE. That will capture in DV format which is 4:1:1 chroma subsampling. I've also never heard of an audio sync issue with one of those. They are also driverless and will work with OBS, Quicktime, VirtualDub etc. Since you aren't going for huge files that might be a good application here. Their firewire can be adapted to thunderbolt 2 which is essentially USB4. All Macs with a thunderbolt port or USB-C port will support that and most modern PCs will as well I think.

There is an interesting video here that compares a 4:2:2 capture from the Blackmagic intensity shuttle to 4:1:1 DV with the ADVC-110 and I really can't tell the difference in end quality honestly. For the simplicity and lack of audio sync issues, that may make it worth not worrying about that bit of horizontal color loss which you may or may not be able to percieve:

Yes, the intensity shuttle is not one of the recommended capture cards here, but the 4:2:2 vs 4:1:1 comparison should be a valid one I would think.

Here's another good head to head comparison of the ADVC-110 vs Blackmagic vs VHS Decode. Theoretically, it should be impossible to beat VHSDecode for end image quality, but it is very resource intense and audio capture has to be done separately. When I say resource intense, I mean like 100GB per hour for a file that doesn't contain audio and the captured RF file has to later be compiled into a viewable video later. The point of having that in the comparison is to say that you are unlikely to do better than that with just about any setup, so if you really can't tell a significant difference between those 3, you might consider just going with the ADVC-110: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h50Rd7948cs

DV format is captured interlaced so you can do all of your usual post-processing as recommended with QTGMC deinterlacing.

I have acquired lots of capture cards and other recommended equipment to see if I can reproduce those results and I'll directly compare with an All-In-Wonder 9000 and Tevion ATI 600 USB clone as well, but that comparison video is probably a few months out yet. I'm also looking into alternative capture methods which will include SD-SDI (which is still 480i, just in a digital form), 480i interlaced HDMI capture and component capture from rackmount TBCs that have those as outputs. Also have quite a few vector scopes/waveform monitors and test pattern generators that will show if various parts of the hardware chain add noise or distort color on their way through.

Ironically the one piece of capture hardware I won't be likely to test are one of the recommended TBCs TBC-1000 or since those probably cost as much as everything else combined and they aren't that readily available either. It's also well discussed that a lot of the recommended TBCs are dying of various failures that often can be beyond what a basic recap will solve, or they could die while you are using them, so reselling for what you paid may also not be as reliable/viable of an option when all this stuff was newer with fewer hours of use.

This video is a direct bash to this forum, He went ballistic for whatever reason.

Every profession, every hobby, every DIY, has nutjobs. This is the one for video capture. His rants are nonsense, and his own samples betray his quality as crap, and some of his information is downright nutty and divorced from reality. And I've removed the links, we won't be feeding that troll.

That's not a good comparison. Very misleading.

I think he wants proof, not promises of better results- ie samples of captures with your ideal chain vs the ADVC-110. I agree it does get kind of ranty, probably because he hasn't personally observed the described pitfalls of DV himself (ie perceivable difference in 4:2:2/4:1:1 subsampling and compression artifacts). I get your frustration that he hasn't actually tried the recommended devices himself either (such as AIW card) and compared it to his. Due to the complexity of setting up an old XP capture rig and sourcing some of the harder to find items in your recommended chain, He would probably say it is more reasonable for you to post the result of your ideal/perfect capture chain (which is complex and harder to source components for) and then directly compare to your own ADVC-110 which is inexpensive and just a single device and post the result.

I will be making a comparison video (using a much wider array of devices) - including some recommended devices. I'm focusing more on the final result and how much of a difference you can tell between many different video chains when used on a variety of video sources rather than the stated specs. In most cases, I'll capture with multiple cards simultaneously using an S-Video distribution amplifier so that the devices are working with an identical starting analog signal to remove any variations in "playback to playback" differences that may be associated with the VCR mechanism itself.

I am looking for recommendations on how to design the best head-to-head test of different capture cards for the comparison video, so if you have any suggestions on how to make that comparison "ideal", please let me know.

At a minimum, I'll be posting raw captures of each chain separately on dropbox, will have lots of vectorscopes/waveform monitors/color bar generator samples as well as other video properties displayed (such as jitter) using a Tektronix LM700T (though that is composite input only).

I would absolutely love to see a comparison. High/Mid/Low tier for each type of setup, with total hardware cost based on market average.

Nah, he just wants to argue. It's a classic situation of "defending your purchase" rather than objectively seeing these tools for what each can and cannot do. Combined with "willful ignorance" at times.

What you're not realizing here is that he has removed many comments from myself and others, hailing from multiple sites, some of which led to the sort of comparisons you mention. But that's not what he wants. He wants for his low-end methods to be proven "bestest ever".

This is why Youtube is a farse at times, where the "content creator" is able to remove comments that do not agree with them, or prevent further comments entirely because it was an avalanche of diasgreement.

No, it's just being cheap and lazy. You can easily assemble random cheap XP boxes for a test, and you can somewhat easily acquire ATI AIW AGP cards for testing (for well under $100 now; MSRP on those was $300+). For testing. Testing, testing. Now, for actual usage, yes, the better (for your sanity) systems do involve more fiddly setup, and certain rarer and pricier AIW models. But that's for actually using it for problem-free captures of entire tapes, for entire projects. Testing is not usage.

^ You need to remember that. Testing is not usage. Most "testing" is just acquiring samples for what you're trying to "prove". It can also be subjected to variables, if you're not careful. And newbies rarely are, mostly because they don't even know what variables can exist. They don't know what they don't know. This is why you must be very careful when it comes to testing, and question any result you see (and those should lead to further confirmation, in another experiment/setup).

Why? I don't respond to internet trolls. My time is valuable, and it's not his to claim. If he wants work done, then $$$ is involved. But that's the situation entirely. Avoiding TBCs, cheap old capture cards, etc -- it's all about money, and being cheap. It's not about quality. His videos are a farce, attempting to defend cheapness (and failing).

Just don't make the mistake of cherry picking ridiculous video clips of ponds, or dominant colors known to not result in DV color loss and color artifacts. That's what this person has done. You have to be willfully deceptive to post clips showing DV (1990s technology, 1990s compression) to be "fine" in the 2020s.

Have fun. :congrats:

Here is a good comparison of DV vs. lossless color. Notice how DV loses detail and gamut in the reds. Even the x264 encoded from lossless looks better.

I never liked that comparison. I think msgohan/Brad made some errors there.

But it does show some losses. ;)

However, the faulty comparison falsely allows some to say "it's not that bad", when that's not true. For starters, motion and interlace will change the discussion quite a bit, issues are amplified.

That is one of the multiple comparisons that was posted in the comments of that Youtube video, but deleted by the deceptive Youtuber. He is so afraid of anything contradicting his nonsense.

Stills can never tell the whole story.

I also wanted to address this, oversight in last reply.

Yes, TBCs are, and always were, the most costly piece of the workflow. If capture workflows were a car, the VCR is the engine, and the TBC is the transmission. It's what makes it all move properly.

But your comment about "TBCS dying" is misleading here. :old:

If you buy random TBcs from random sellers on eBay, odds are not in your favor, and it probably is a random POS. The claims of "working" and "tested" are always nonsense, as none of them know how to properly test this gear. All they see is a black box worth $$$$ (even if it's not). What you find on eBay is almost entirely recyclers now. Seeing a LED light is not a test. By the time newbie buyers learn their purchase was faulty, 30 days long ago passed, they're SOL. If you bought expensive crap, yep, you lost money.

That's not at all the same as refurb'd gear.

Odds of truly refurb'd gear breaking on you is minimal, and it holds resale value. Some of us mark our gear, and that in itself gives it added value.

For example, my refurb'd gear rarely has issues, and most of the few issues to date have been shipping mishaps. Longer term, often years later, in the unlikely event it does break, you can still contact me for help. I've done all of these things in the past:
- give info on DIY repair
- given referral to somebody that can assist them
- taken the faulty/damaged unit on trade-in
- re-refurb'd it myself (sometimes free, sometimes fee)
- sent replacement parts (sometimes free, sometimes fee)
- the owner upgraded to something else in my arsenal of available gear; old faulty item donated, use on trade-in, etc

The difference is this: with an eBay seller, your relationship ends in 30 days or less. I, however, understand acquiring gear is one battle (buying gear) in the war (converting your collection). So I try to be here for you longer term. There are literally only 2-3 of us that think this way. So who you buy your gear from matters, not just the brand/model of the now-aged gear.

Heck, I've even helped out people who bought my gear from one of my buyers, somebody I'd never even met.

Warning: Some shady eBay sellers are now claiming their junk is "refurbished". It's not. They don't even (PROPERLY!) clean the decks, no cleaning anything internal at all.