352x480 vs 720x480 to capture MPEG2 for DVD
 

I have an ATI 9600XT MMC with Win XP and was wondering, after testing,witch one looks better as a final product on a HDTV, as most of my Friends and Family who really care, will be watching my VHS TO DIGITAL VIDEOS on. They probably won't notice the difference as much as you and I do,But it might keep them from Yawning and going to sleep,TOSSING JIM'S DVD BEHIND THE EASY CHAIR!!! BUT so Far the MPEG Captures have looked Great!!!!...Are there any advantages to capturing in 352x480 vs 720x480?? or are the end results the same?

You'll get different opinions on this. Both ways are valid in the right situation. I'd say it depends on the actual footage itself to some extent -- especially the balance between the amount of image detail, how noisy/grainy the video is, and how much motion there is. I don't know that I'd personally trust one particular workflow in all circumstances.

If I were you, I'd test it out both ways and see what your own personal preference is. What type of footage is this, home movies?

Here's a little comparison. Basic VHS-C source, Panasonic HS1000, Brighteye 75, captured at full PAL D1. Denoised and deinterlaced, then resized to 360x576 and back to 704x576. On the left is original 704 frame and on the right is the twice resized one with halved resolution (Cropped from 720 to 704 - valid for DVD).

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

I've fixed the before/after post for you. (And deleted the dupes.)

The two images appear to be 100% identical. And that's what I would expect from 720x480 vs 352x480 for VHS sources.

Here's an unaltered source.

Original | Resized
Admin refused to unhide hidden content
nothing will help to see hidden content

What are the bitrates for each capture?

They're captured lossless.

VHS has about 200-240 analog lines of resolutions. There are often referred to as "horizontal" lines, but it's actually a horizontal measurement, not physical lines that go left/right. If anything, they're "vertical lines", because detail is measured along the other axis.

I know, that's confusing.

But it's an important distinction because analog has only one measurement dimension. Digital has two. And in the early days, most people confused which was which. That's where the myth of 352x240 VCD being equal to VHS came from. People saw 240 in VHS, and 240 in VCD, and assumed the numbers matched, so quality is therefore the same.

In actuality, VHS equates fairly well to about 200x480 to 240x480 in digital measurement. If you insist on applying Kell theory, then it could be as much as 360x480 at peak perfection. Also remember that VHS color is far below the VHS luma.

352x480 is perfectly capable of capturing every detail out of a VHS tape.

Problems arise when the video encoders are lousy, and have an inability to encode properly at 352x480 Half D1 resolution. A lot of DVD recorders have this problem -- mostly the "big name brand" units like Panasonic, Sony and Philips. The encoders are apparently tweaked for 720x480 or 704x480, and everything else is an afterthought. This is where a lot of disagreements come from -- users with lousy encoders.

The only time you'd want to consider 720x480 seriously is when you're attempting to add (false) detail to VHS transfers, by way of a detailer (SignVideo DR-1000, etc). That can boost the signal grain above 352x480, due to the false sharpening methods used to fool your eyes into thinking it has more detail. It would be rather wasteful to use a detailer, and still capture at 352x480. It's one reason a detailer is not an everyday appliance, but one used as needed.

Finally, understand that lossy compression formats -- like MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 (H.264/AVC, Xvid/Divx, etc) -- can merge similar visual data in order to compress with the allocated bitrate. So sometimes detail is lost, by design, in order to give a compressed-but-acceptable image quality. Anything below 25Mbps MPEG-2 is going to lose some level of finite detail, recalling that 9.8Mbps is the max allowed for DVD-Video, and 15Mbps is the max allowed for Blu-ray. This tends to only be noticeable on 1:1 comparisons, like MPEG encoder tests.

A thorough answer, I hope. :)

So, is it okay to capture VHS at 352X480 using Huffyuv with the intention of having it as the master source, and later converting to DVD & Blue-ray in the future?

Would 352X480 be a perfect master source for filtering, future conversions to DVD and Blue-ray?

Thanks.

Thanks robjv1,and everyone else!...I failed to mention that I'm capturing in MPEG 2-DVD NTSC on a AIW Card MMC....The VHS source is Home Movies from early '90's Consumer Grade VHS Camcorder, Of Steam Engine Excursions (Railroad) out in the Desert with mostly sagebrush/hills/mountains Background and fast action Train/Smoke from steam Engine in Foreground.The Original Images are pretty decent with little Grain and the tapes I used were TDK Extra HG or Sony "V" Extra High Grade...The Motion is mostly Panning Slowly with Train passage,and the detail is in the train itself and the sagebrush/mountains scenery outdoors. I have tested both resolutions during capture and don't see too much difference,..I guess my question is if one or the other res. "fit" better on a HDTV as a final product,I'm trying to choose ONE res. to use during capture..Thanks

Blu-ray SD = 720x480. No choice in the matter. So plan accordingly.
I would not want to upsize 352x480 to 720x480. (It's not the same kind of "stretching" as happens during playback.) :2cents:

For DVD-Video only, 352x480 is perfect for VHS sources.

Ahh...amazing, and to-the-point response. Thanks Admin, you are a star.

This sets me in the right path...

regards