Question on VHS Capture Device vs DV Transfer
 

Okay I ran into another snag somewhat...I have been searching on the topic for awhile on capturing/transferring but I need a little help in this area in regards to what device is best.

For S/VHS, would it be better to capture the video through a different capture device rather than going to the DV conversion route to the PC? I don't plan to put anything onto DVD right now, just to capture the raw video to the PC, post TBC for processing later in NLE software.

DV is obviously simple and just transferring the data as DV-AVI. Hi8 and D8 tape transfers can be done via the camcorders.

But for VHS capture, what is the best codec to capture to? I read that HuffyYUV was pretty good to do this with, and should S/VHS material be captured as lossless? As for resolution, would it be best to capture as 720x480 or 640x480?

In addition, if VHS has to be captured separately without the AD conversion via Firewire, what would be the ideal capture card to use in this case? It would be simpler in a way to run the S/VHS video signals to the DV2000 deck and from there it will run to the PC, but obviously will be in DV-AVI format. I used to use Scenalyzer to do the DV transfers and worked well.

Looks like it will be in my best interest to get a TBC to get the cleanest signal as possible so may check into the AVT-8710 I read about. Funny, I still have the Sima 'video enhancer' device that did well for defeating the Macrovision tapes but of course is no TBC.

People here prefer ATI for lossless capture. I personally prefer my Philips SAA7134 chip based LifeView FlyVideo 3000 capture card for lossless capture via S-Video. But since I run audio via an external soundcard, I get sync problems which I correct after each capture. So far I had no luck achieving even decent quality capture using ATI capture cards so I am sticking with LifeView.

I have Canopus ADVC-300 which does decent DV capture from analog. I can later post images from FlyVideo Huffyuv vs Canopus ADVC-300 DV. I get slightly better and more detailed result with FlyVideo.

Please do post the images, as I would like to see how well the detail is preserved in Huffy vs. the Canopus 300. I aim to learn as much as possible.

I don't have a Canopus device but I have the Panny DV2000 which would serve for the A/D conversion. As soon as I get my XP box built, and I have the ATI 8500DV card (and all related cables and dongle), I am going to give it a test run and see how well it does.

I'm not sure if it is Huffyuv vs DV though. It might be FlyVideo vs Canopus. But I will post images anyway if I don't forget. If I forget, remind me in the evening of Eastern Time.

I'll be at work unfortunately, but I am in the same time zone you are.

DV is compressed so its not the same as Huffyuv.

I know that. But compression doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to screw up details. It may introduce artifacts though. Because when I took Huffyuv and recompressed it to DV, I honestly didn't notice difference.

--Leonid

PS. Are you in Metropolitan New York by any chance?

There you go...

Admin refused to unhide hidden content
nothing will help to see hidden content

Left side is DV.
Right side is Huffyuv.

No I live in Michigan, but have been in NYC area several years back.

Looking at the two images, they look about the same to me, couldn't really tell a visual difference. Of course if any others see the difference perhaps they could point them out.

The huffyuv one has a little more details. Just look at the very front tree. The DV one is a bit darker and details are hidden.

I edited post#7 with the before/after image code, so you can compare with a slider.
It's not perfect, as the DV vs Huffyuv frame size and geometry seems off, but you can still view noise, color loss and detail.

Probably not the best comparison shot. It does largely appear identical, due to the source and the scene.

Wow, this was nice editing of the shots!!!! :thumb: