I captured the image directly from the source (via VirtulDub) and it is 720 x 576 (1.25:1; it was also captured), and not like the playback program it showed in 768 x 576 (1.33:1).
------------------------------------------------------ I read about image formats (not from today)... But I still may not know much about it. 768 x 576(1,33:1) is OAR and 720 x 576 (1.25:1) for VHS tapes... is a non-original, distorted image (image format) compared to the original(for PAL) ? "Capture the spec res. You can convert it to whatever else is needed post-capture. Noting that 768x576 is wholly useless, the 4x3 is 720x540, and deinterlaced. I guess, technically, 768x576 would retain interlace, but no interlaced (player) device will view it, not a valid res. The source does not contain 768 detail, nor even 720." Source quote: http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/vide...html#post63434 Most player(devices) will not display interlaced video in 768 x 576 ? At 720 x 576, yes ? |
The reasoning is because it's the standard, decided on years ago, predating even my own foray into video. It just is. 768 was never a standard, no support, often not even possible.
Realize that I find lots of stuff to be strange, but the reasonings are generally very technical. Sometimes arbitrary. For example, why did head-switching noise need to be visible? It's my understanding that this could have been hidden, but wasn't due to laziness of relying on overscan. In fact, much of the overscan noise could have been removed. I could ask why all day, but ultimately it does not matter. It is what it is. We just work around it, correct in post-capture edit/restore. So, you capture 720x576, and you later resize to the desired viewing size. The end. But noting that 768 is probably not a wise choice. Either leave it 720x576 interlaced, or 720x540 deinterlaced/progressive. PAL VHS has zero detail past 300x (give or take, depending on if you worship Kell factor). |
I edited my earlier post.
-- merged -- Most player(devices) will not display interlaced video in 768 x 576 ? At 720 x 576, yes ? -- merged -- Does ATI AIW USB (ATI TV Wonder USB 2.0) have integrated (internal) A/V capture timing ? I think which of these five settings would be best for this device... An S-VHS VCR with built-in TBC (without external TBC) and a tape that is in good condition, but in literally at most a few places (short-lived - what for a maximum of three seconds, and most often a second or less) may have a broken (completely) or distorted signal - sound and image... 1. Resync mode: [x] Sync audio to video [x] Correct video timing [x] Automatically disable resync 2. Resync mode: [x] Do not resync [ ] Correct video timing [ ] Automatically disable resync 3. Resync mode: [x] Do not resync [x] Correct video timing [ ] Automatically disable resync 4. Resync mode: [x] Do not resync [ ] Correct video timing [x] Automatically disable resync 5. Resync mode: [x] Do not resync [x] Correct video timing [x] Automatically disable resync General options: all two of these are set up in all variants on: OFF. Audio latency determination: DEFAULT. DirectShow options: all set up on: OFF. [I think that these options are fine set in every variant and used equipment and cassette, although I read that Lordsmurf "advised" to leave all options in the tab "Timing" as default so I'm not sure how it is the best. Maybe practise will show this - because every case could be different than other/s.] |
Number 2 is recommended for USB devices in the earlier notes posted in this guide, because most USB capture devices perform their own a/v sync internally. That's what I use for my VC500. if you want to experiment with other settings it's up to you.
Quote:
|
Thank you.
lordsmurf Can you comment on my question - especially in the context of (thinking) about ATI AIW USB(ATI TV Wonder USB 2.0) ? I mean especially this my question: Does ATI AIW USB (ATI TV Wonder USB 2.0) have integrated (internal) A/V capture timing ? |
Quote:
Let me turn things around here: Why are you asking this question? :question: |
Because I would like to know how it is in the context of the best "parameter" setting for capture in VirtualDub.
And I just want to know how this device works on this subject. So do you know does ATI AIW USB (ATI TV Wonder USB 2.0) have integrated (internal) A/V capture timing ? |
USB capture devices tat we recommend have their own internal a/v sync in their processing chips, as far as we know. If you want to conduct your own experiments with non-recommended products you're free to do so. The reason VirtualDub has sync options is to accommodate those devices that do their own sync work. My experience with telling VirtualDub to resync and handle its own inserting/dropping frames is that you'll usually get inserted and dropped frames unless you're using an external frame-level tbc, which you don't want to use. You can expect dirt-cheap Asian copies of recommended devices to use undocumented and unidentifiable components give unpredictable and undesirable results. The settings I entered for USB devices are those that I've used and have seen recommended by others who use the same products. Different system setups can often yield different results with the same device. The capture guide is a guide, not a bible.
|
Thank you for this information.
Most players(devices) will not display interlaced video in 768 x 576 ? At 720 x 576, yes ? |
Your question makes no sense. Do you want 720x576 video to play at 768x576, or do you want 720x576 video encoded to play with a 4:3 display aspect ratio at any frame size on any display device? Does your display device measure exactly 768x576? Is your PC monitor or TV or other display device limited to 768x576? Can you configure your media player to play video at exactly 768x576 on any display? If you have an NTSC video or DVD at 720x480, do you want NTSC to also play at 768x576? Why do you want 768x576 specifically? How are you capturing? What is your final goal for output? Do you want square pixel video or anamorphic video? Do you know the difference? Do you want DVD, BluRay, web mounting, SmartPhone, one or two of these, three of these, or all 4 of these? Has it previously been mentioned in earlier posts from lordsmurf that 768x576 is a nonstandard frame size that would mean trouble for many display devices and encoders?
|
I would like this image resolution because: I would like the image of "my" movie to be always displayed in the aspect ratio: 1.33:1(4:3) (OAR) on every screen*, not in 1.25:1 (not original image format).
* In a situation when I know that my screen is a 16:9 display and when the aspect ratio is set to: 16:9 (not stretching to 16:9 "narrower" images, only entering them in this aspect ratio: black stripes on the sides screen for 4:3 format). Without using any stretching or narrowing of the aspect ratio - just in the native format of the TV or other devices that it will be displayed in 1.33:1 (4:3). Can I do it differently without losing quality (if possible) than after capturing the image in 720 x 576 (5:4; 1.25:1) stretch this image to 768 x 576 (4:3; 1.33:1)? [If the image were captured in 768 x 576, there would probably be no "problem."] Even if the image quality is "lost". Let's assume that the correct image format is more important than image quality and that someone chooses the correct image format. |
Unfortunately you still don't understand that 1.25:1 for 720x576 is the physical aspect ratio of a standard PAL video frame. As a lossless and un-encoded video it plays at 720x576 because un-encoded AVI has no display aspect ratio and always plays at its physical frame size. If you encode using MPEG or h.264 and specify a 4:3 display aspect ratio (DAR), the final 720x576 video video will always play at 4:3 regardless of the size of the display device.
You should also know that every PAL DVD recording that you own or watch in other people's homes has a frame size of 720x576, whether its playback aspect Ratio is 4:3 or 16:9. Some of the PAL DVD's might play at 4:3 or in CinemaScope or Panavision, but the frame size on those PAL DVD's is 720x576. If you own any NTSC DVD's, the frame size on those NTSC DVD's is 720x480, which is a 2:3 aspect ratio frame, but they can play 4:3, VistaVision, Panasvision, or CinemaScope frames st the proper aspect ratio because of the way they are encoded. You can get the same results when you encode your 720x576 AVI's, but you simply don't understand it and explaining the same thing again and again is getting tiresome. Unfortunately, if you transfer a PAL DVD to your computer for editing, the VOB files will play at 4:3 in a media player but in an editor they will display as 720x576. (1.25:1). Capture to lossless 640x480, which is an industry standard 4:3 square pixel frame size. Don't use an oddball frame size like 768x576 -- it's asking for trouble. 640x480 will always display at 4:3 on any display device and when it's encoded it will still display at 4:3 unless you specify another display aspect ratio. Note that 640x480 cannot be used for DVD or for standard definition BluRay, both of which require 720x576 for PAL or 720x480 for NTSC. 640x480 will play on most DVD or BluRay players when encoded with MPEG, but a BluRay player is required for playing h.264 encodes. A modern SmartTV can display either of those encodes if you encode it according to the requirements of the TV -- and remember that smart TV's are not computers and can often be very stupid when it comes to different formats. |
Quote:
Quote:
From what I checked, this option consumes probably the least CPU and RAM, probably also among all three display options to choose from. As for Preview and Overlay, CPU usage looks very similar (I don't know what RAM is like). 1. Suppose I use: Overlay or Preview. Is it best for capture (among other things, probably CPU consumption, etc., but not only) to minimize the capture window and the entire VirtulDub or leave it open on the screen ? 2. Is the best for capturing (among other things probably about CPU consumption, etc., but not only) is to set the computer screen blanking or is it better to keep it awake (though I can't remember, but I don't know if sometimes when capturing the screen despite settings from the capture will not expire) ? Another good option replacing the inability to turn off "No display" during capture may be connecting the VCR to a second computer via any other converter via e.g. SCART or Composite and observing the image there, cassette end etc. 3. Using a VCR at the same time on two devices can cause some problems with the VCR so that e.g. the proper signal (which is captured via S-Video) can be weakened, distorted or completely not delivered at some point in time if it could not be delivered using it on two devices (connections) ? 4. Does using it on two devices during cassette playback and capture cause any problems for the signal ? 5. Perhaps because it is an analog signal: there may be interference from additional devices, cables, transmission nearby... Yes ? Quote:
Can you say something about this: http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/vide...html#post63712 ? |
Lordsmurf likes overlay mode, for whatever reason. I prefer the more efficient preview mode, for reasons stated in the quoted material. Also, the capture histogram won't work in overlay mode. Use the mode you prefer or the mode that gives less trouble.
Why anyone wants to capture without seeing what's happening is a mystery to me. But everyone is different. |
Thanks for the detailed guide! This helps a lot for non-technical people. I'm assuming this is still correct, as people were recently submitting question. I have couple of questions:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I only tried to single capture yesterday before heading to bed, I will fiddle with it more later on. I didn't tested the audio sync, but I check the video itself and it looks like some section along the recording had a problem. I could see a thin strip showing on and off across couple of places. they appears for less than 1 seconds and disappears. I somehow remember this being an issue when I used the VHS, but I'm not sure why. There's a chance the source is the problem, I need to connect the VCR directly to the TV and check. If I see the same when directly connected to the TV - Could it be the VCR itself? I remember we used to play tapes that used to 'clean' the VCR. Was that a real thing? and maybe I need to do it? I will attach more screen shots later of the exact problem after more research. And lastly, before finding this guide, I found this YouTube video. It mentioned that post capture, it's mostly a good idea to fix the interlaced fields using deinterlace. After doing so, he compress the video at 60FPS, because now that the fields are being deinterlaced, it's not longer 30 FPS. Is there a guide around on post filtering? filers I always want to use to improve the general quality of the capture? Thanks again for the guide and help! -- merged -- I did some more research for couple of questions , I had. Sadly I can no longer modify the original post, but I'm writing the answers for some of the question I wrote: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For everything else, I pretty much still looking for answers :-) Thanks! |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/vide...time-base.html |
Hello msgohan! Thank you for the answer. I posted another post couple of seconds before you did answer some of the questions you answer :-)
Quote:
Oh, awesome. I'm not sure how to identify the Tape type I use. I'll check the Tape home, maybe It got an indication on the TAPE itself. Quote:
Resync mode: [x] Do not resync [ ] Correct video timing [ ] Automatically disable resync Quote:
But there is something I'm not sure about. It sounds like TBC just fix issues with the video buffer. Isn't it something that can be done today with a software post capture? a software that detects the same issues and try to fix those? Thank you! |
TBCs operate on parts of the analog signal outside of the active video area. In captured files, none of the Vertical Blanking Interval is present and only a portion of the Horizontal Blanking Interval is. So it's impossible for software to correct except by guessing based on image content.
"PAL" uses 625 lines per frame; only 576 of these are the active portion that's captured. The project below refers to a digitization method and software that bypasses the typical capture card operation, and all processing of the playback machine itself, instead digitizing the recorded signal close to its original form: VideoHelp thread: Current status of ld-decode / vhs-decode (true "backup" of RF signals) While I'm very enthusiastic about it, I would say it's still in "alpha" status for PAL VHS, and I think it will only ever be of interest to Advanced users because of how many steps are needed just to get a normal video file that can be played back. In this YouTube clip you can see how much non-visual information is actually present in an analog video signal. All of those borders are actually part of the recording on tape. |
Oh, I see. Thank you, I didn't know that. It's funny, because today we doing so many amazing things. From landing things on the moon to fully emulating gaming consoles. I guess it's just that not many people are interested in converting VHS to digital format.
That being said, the project looks very interesting, and who knows where it take us later on. The problem I assume is that the source is getting older. I don't know how age impact Tapes, but I'm assuming ages does have some sort of impact. My folks has a large amount of Video Tapes with us being children. They take a lot of space, and I wanted to digitalize it, and throw those away to save some space. But it looks like I might hold tapes a bit more - as maybe later on, it will be possible to do a better conversion. I might Air tight the tapes in a Vacuum bags to keep them from ages faster. But to the current setup - I will try to get my hands on TBC, even though it sounds very hard. It's a big unit, and I don't live on the states, to shipping is going to be pretty expensive. I will start without one, and adjust. I'll try to post a sample tomorrow. Perhaps you can tell me if the artifact I see are part of the hardware I'm using or the quality of the tape. One thing I noticed in almost all videos, is the lower part of the video have touch stretchy white/black lines? Is that the quality of the tape? Thanks! |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
LP mode T120 = 4 hours But depends on tape length (T120, T180, etc), and mode used. Quote:
Quote:
And specifically, this quoted section: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.