Wait, are you able to Capture at 10bit?

Yes !
I have captured the SDI output from the TBC using a Blackmagic SDI to PCIE mini recorder card.
The footage is captured in Apple V210 lossless 10bit codec files which Blackmagic provide. I think they are about 120G/hr
There aren't many available alternative lossless 10bit codecs.
I am so far able to do some analog restoration using AVIsynth in 10bit resolution. But at this point in time I have not been able to do deinterlacing with QTGMC in 10bit.

I should point out that I am a bit of a newby to AVIsynth.

The best part is probably that the video converted directly to digital (12bit internally before proc amp) and not 8bit A to D then D to A and then A to D again if using an analog output TBC. It is also lossless and avoids using DV capture.
I also own a Leitch DPS575 with analog to SDI which also has a good TBC with a 3D comb filter for composite input.
This would be great for capturing Laserdiscs in native composite video, but I don't have any!

Impressive, 10bit is as rare as it comes for capture cards.
Didn't think you could receive and capture 10bit in the consumer market at all.

I really would like to see the advantage compared to 8bit. But it's impossible as i can't display 10bit, and i think even to get that to work is Special software, certain graphic cards etc, really hope it becomes standard though, 10bit is like 16bit audio to 24bit, it's kinda overkill, but you get to the point where any rounding errors that appear are impossible to notice.

Well it sure is important to keep track of the setup.
I haven't got any TBC and just a capture card, but that's it.

No idea of SDI works, just heard about it, but could you link your TBC and Card, a bit interested in this "SDI/10bit"
approach:)

Though, isn't the video 8 bit originally, where does it process to 10bit, is it the TBC for you?

I am capturing analog video so it is neither 8bit or 10bit. In theory analog video is "smoother" than digital video. In practice I would expect most modern analog sources (ie VCR or 8mm camcorder) to have internal digital processing (albeit at 10bit) internal to the chippery. Nevertheless the most lossless output available from an analog source is analog s-video or component!

8bit digital video is excellent for watching video, but when processing is required 10bit comes to the fore.This is especially so for source material that is too dark or over exposed and lacking contrast.

When significant tonal corrections are made 8bit video will show banding (only 256 shades or graduations)
When 10bit video is corrected there are 1024 shades available. This why most audio/video devices now use higher bit resolution internally in the processing chips.

10bit processing is significantly better for RGB><YUV conversion
MPC-HC can be modified for viewing 10bit video. Will post more later

So analogue isn't in any "bit"?
Well guess it's the same as Audio there, there is no depth, we simply have it there as we can't produce infinite data.

Had no idea a VCR would digitize, are you sure about this?

I have some experience in Avisynth and processing, and yes as you say, when processing 8bit the rounding errors will stack and you will get banding (Similar to getting noise when working in 16bit with audio).

That however is simply fixed by upconverting an 8bit video to 16bit, with that you get a huge working ground and rounding errors are no longer an issue.

Then after you are done you can simply downconvert it to 8bit or 10bit.

I usually do this, and output 10bit to x264 so it can process the data directly (no, 16->8->10) conversions.

To correct myself the 8bit video we are discussing is actually REC601 which means the luma is only 16-235 which is only 219 shades of grey!
http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/au/p...specs/W-DLK-06
for capture of SDI to PC
http://www.ensembledesigns.com/products/brighteye/be75
recommend this for TBC + A to D + audio capture. no other models suitable
It is very expensive brand new ($nearly $2K in Australia).
Got mine on Ebay for ~$250

This product has 10bit analog capture
http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/au/p...sity/techspecs
it will not work with tape sourced video as it does not have a TBC

Well I am certain that any decent video deck with DNR and or LTBC has AD and DA conversion.
OSD and antishake filters as well would be digital domain

My partial 10bit processing script

Well then 10bit processing isn't a problem right?
I mean, as long as you can input it, you just need to upsample to 16bit (as you do), then do the processing, then downsample to 10 or 8bit in the final production.

Pretty much what you do with 8bit.

It would be fantastic if Avisynth had native 16bit processing and all filters as well..
My analog tape collection is starting to get sticky and unplayable so the most important positive to all this is that the master captures are at least 10bit resolution, and ready for the future.
I would prefer if I could capture at 4:4:4 and 768 x 576 (4:3) and NOT D1 (720 x 576 anamorphic 5:4)
At least it is an improvement compared to lossy DV capture (4:2:1 PAL or 4:1:1 NTSC )

There is no gain in 4:4:4. It's like taking a YV16 file and upconverting it to YV24, it makes no sense, it will just look identical for larger size.

768x576 is no use either.

The information from 720->768 doesn't exist, that's why the Aspect Ratio exist to "guess" it.
You can either capture it to 4:3, resize it to 4:3 or let the playback to it for you.
All will be the same (Except for the resizer of use).

You are forgetting that this is analog video. None of these parameters apply natively. This is not "upscaling".
4:2:1 captures does seem to exacerbate the already poor analog chroma signal. 4:2:2 is excellent admitedly.
I am simply trying to capture analog video without adding further losses in the digital domain.
Analog video does not have a horizontal pixel resolution but I think it is equivalent to about 420 (lines) for Hi8.
The D1 digital video standard is about 20 years old!

True, but for me using PAL i am not sure how it will look.
As every other line in PAL is "useless", meaning it's pretty much identical to YV12.
So the solution is to discard those lines of any chroma information.

So capturing in 4:2:2 would be a waste for it.

NTSC however, is closer to YV16, so the information there is another story.

As for the "pixel resolution".

If i remember correctly nothing should come even close to 720x576 except DVD.
And i don't think anything actually captures 768x576. I know one of my cards can, but from my tests, it looks pretty much identical, so it's probably just stretching the data (like it does with it anyway as there is no accurate resolution, you just have to capture larger than it really is to not miss information)

I am in a PAL country as well.
My work flow until now for creating viewable video has so far been to keep the video 50p.
Bluray supports 50p at 1280 x 720
After QTGMC and editing (all at 50p) I use nnedi3 to resize to 1280 x 720 and encode to H264 at
25Mb/s ( probably near lossless considering the source material). Don't discard fields after deinterlacing!
The net result of this workflow is that absolutely no data is wasted including the 50fps temporal infomation of interlaced PAL. Slow motion works really well from this.
Hi bitrate processing would eliminate the only "loss" - converting YUY2 to RGB.
The results are truly amazing especially when I tell interested friends Yes! it was analog Hi8

You beat me to it. This is correct. :congrats:

You are both correct : upscaling to 4:4:4 is a waste of time.
I was NOT proposing this.
Any analog capture, though, that is less than 4:4:4 is lossy.
You can't throw out 50% of your chroma data and call it lossless!

Sampling the video horizontally at 768 pixels (compared to 720 and then interpolating to 768) is a small improvement. It means aliasing artifacts are moved further out of the passband.

What I was hoping was that someone more advanced than I at Avisynth would criticize my avs script above.
The instructions for using Avisynth seem to be spread across the entire internet!

If, suppose, my job was to capture for posterity the last remaining Wax Cylinder(!) recording of a famous singer for the National Library. If it was up to me and I had a choice to capture at 16bit/44.1 or 24bit/96Khz I would go the latter- And I would manufacture a high quality magnetic transducer for the pickup on the player rather than sticking microphone into the horn!
The 10bit video captures I have so far made are quite visibly superior to my previous DV captures.
You really must try it - it is truly worthwhile.

Why use instead of
where x= the positive/negative pixels to shift.

Thanks for looking!
I did use chromashift in the line above it.
FixChromaBleeding has a different function to Chromashift.
I have also tried FixChromaBleedingMod but it does not always work and it sometimes causes weird blocking
I have since found a better way to use FixChromaBleeding:

I have some 20YO video (not mine)that was copied from a Lo8 cam to my SVHS.
The original tape was stolen with the camcorder. This is from a DV capture from the SVHS and I have been attempting to repair the Chroma flare. Check out my B4 and after. I only used neat video for the Chroma.
Sorry I managed to grab a different frame and yes, the chroma gain is too high, but it it does emphasise the improvement.

We need to add some "do not buy" advice to this thread.
For example, the Leitch DPS-475/575 -- http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/vide...ade-tbc-2.html

The DPS475 is NTSC only and could be a problem for some. I have a DPS575. When the TBC is engaged it has only 8bit resolution but SDI 10bit or analog output
I am unable to see any difference in the output quality compared to the BE75.
As I have said previously the benefit of 10bit will mostly show when making adjustments that will otherwise cause banding.
The unit is monstrously big and I really can't recommend it: unless someone has a large collection of laserdiscs that they want to capture with superior quality - it has a 3D comb filter for composite input

For a proc amp, that would make a small difference, yes. :2cents:

You can when none of your sources come close to having full chroma resolution. Do you really think your home recordings using consumer equipment have more chroma resolution than, say, a 4:2:2 studio master made from a 35mm film scan in 1990 or 2005 simply because your recordings are stored on analog tape?

The process of color-under recording itself is a form of lossy analog compression that massively cuts down the chroma resolution and is the reason for color bleed on tapes in the first place.

Basically any decent capture chip since like 1998 internally samples at 1440 or greater and downsamples to the specified output resolution.

It's worth noting that unless you turn off the TBC in your S-VHS or Hi8 player, you've already converted your video to 8-bit 4:2:2 (or less) before it has the chance to reach your 10-bit converter. So you are giving yourself more headroom for your second A-D step, but the signal has already been limited. Even the TBCs in Betacam SP decks were only 8-bit.

No of course not! This is a personal choice though. I would also choose to Capture my analog cassettes in FLAC format not MP3! I dont want to add MP3 losses to an already bad recording!
(Actually it is probably unfair to compare MP3 with 4:2:0)

Yes I know this! I think the Hi-8/VHS chroma resolution is only about 80 lines.(?)
I have noticed that 4:2:0 capture slightly worsens already bad chroma


Yes great. But don't you think it would be more logical to downsample to 768 and not re-up 720 to 768?

I have more or less acknowleged this above.

Nevertheless it is a pleasure to talk to someone that knows what I am talking about..

If you were displaying at 768, but aren't you displaying on an HDTV? Taking your 720 capture and having it resized by integer 2 to get 1440 horizontally is then better than 1.875. (Unfortunately the same isn't possible vertically.)

[EDIT: I see you're scaling to 960x720. So unless you're playing that windowed or have a display that is really 720p and not one of those 768p panels, there's an extra resizing step added.]

;)

If you have used it much, could you post your thoughts about the DPS-575 in that thread linked earlier?

It's a pleasure to read educated debates. :)

I first resize to 960x720 (4:3) and then add sidebars to 1280x720 50p (BD).
Downscales lose data but multiple upscales are probably harmless.
My plasma is 1920 x 1080 but I choose 720 so that I can get 50FPS
Yes it will be interesting to compare DPS575.
If I am to to do a cartoon source I need my SVHS machine.
The one with LTBC is out of action for the time being

Ideally, you would try to eliminate extra upsize steps in the same way that you would try to reduce the number of YUV/RGB conversions.

So is the idea just that you want 50fps files you can burn to disc instead of connecting a hard drive to a media player? Have you ruled out using the AVCHD 2.0 spec for 1080p50?

More thoughts:
Since 1440 rez is really anamorphic 1080 x 1920 why not use this?.
Currently NNEDI3 upscales X2 but I am then downscaling back to 720, instead I could upscale to 1080.
My workflow could be 1080 x 1920 50p. Bluray can't take this resolution but I could put it in an MKV format for viewing on my TV. I think my Cambridge player can handle this.

Our thoughts are simultaneous!!
Can I put AVCHD on a Bluray disc?
I think maybe not all players handle AVCHD?

You might consider checking if your MKV player works with 576p50 and comparing its own upscaling to NNEDI3. I prefer not to bake upsizing into my encodes at all.

Well, because it is anamorphic 16:9. So that's another unnecessary resize step to stretch from 1440 to 1920 on playback.

Yes to both questions. You would need a player that works with the 2.0 revision of AVCHD, specifically.

Hmm i thing i thought about.
Does capturing in Full Range increase quality in this case?

You make adjustments so the Black is Black and White is White etc in Full Range.
This should increase the quality a bit compared to TV standard, as i don't actually thing this is set in stone when it's analogue.

-- merged --

Other than my previous question.

I would like to know if there are some images from TBC-100?
As all the other seems to have negative impact in some way that's noticeable (resolution,bleeding etc).

Also, i don't quite grasp the need of a TBC when you can still get it without it.
Meaning, many Capture Cards can't capture VCR content cause of the instable signal,
but some can. And in those cases, are TBC really needed, what does it to there?

Technically yes, because you have 256 values available instead of 220. But you shouldn't do it, because you're going against the standards and creating a video that will only be displayed properly using a specially tweaked pipeline.

True, but wouldn't it also increase quality in the end result (like 10bit to 8bit would)?
Though obviously a lot less compared to a bit increase.

to help prevent dropped frames

But if i don't get dropped frames?
Normally when i capture with such a card (which in this case would be a conextant card, which sadly can't handle contrast/brightness well which makes it useless for archival "White Crush"*), i don't get dropped frames, except for example if the tape is Empty and then it switches to having content, that Switch can cause some dropped frames as it's just garbage, but i don't think that matters at all as it's nothing of interest there and just duplicating frames suffice.

*White Crush is some kind of function it has that is supposed to prevent contrast from crushing colors.
Sadly it's just weird, it will simply darken the picture (dynamically), and the white can still crush information.
So it's like you would increase contrast on a picture, then reduce it afterwards.

It's not worth making incompatible video for such a small gain. Video is complicated enough as it is without deliberately breaking things.

I wouldn't be incomatible. I meant,

Capture = 0-255 Full Range -> Lossless

Restore/Filter the clip and most likely upsample to 16bit.
Convert to 8bit 16-235 in the end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zerowalker View Post
True, but wouldn't it also increase quality in the end result (like 10bit to 8bit would)?
Though obviously a lot less compared to a bit increase.[/quote]

Maybe Zerowalker has a point. Maybe he could capture at 0-255 , do his video processing and then resquish down to 16-236. Could this be a slight improvement in workflow? It certainly would not be as great a gain as 10 bit processing. Also , it could make things worse for YUV <> RGB conversions due to out of gamut colors being generated.

I later discovered identical frames in old analog to DV captures, This means the Canopus unit was adding and presumably dropping frames due to a lack of TBC.
This is what set me on a quest for a TBC

Not sure what you mean.
Are you saying your capture card would capture without issue. But instead going black, it would duplicate frames instead?

Cause this doesn't happen to me with Conextant as far as i can tell. There should be no identical frames (except the ones added by VirtualDub when needed, which mostly is in those "empty tape/Swich scene" scenarios).

Yes, sorry, the dupe frames are probably added by the capture software.
Nevertheless this would not happen if a TBC is used

Well my Webcam produces a lot of dups (in VD) cause of it not giving a flawless stream of frames.
It's "30fps" is actually about "28.874fps", this may probably differ depending on PC clock.

However, not sure how it is for Capture card with TBC, will they produce 25.00000 fps?
I somehow doubt this is possible. But it should of course be much more stable compared to if the Capture card couldn't handle the "frames" which would makes the fps wiggle up and down.

In what way do you propose this would be better than setting black at 16 and white at 235 in the first place?

You would be able to capture that 0-16 + 235-255 information in the first place.
Meaning you get more information during the capture.

Though, i guess it also depends on how the Capture card works. I have no idea how it does things, but if it just capture YUV and don't care if it's PC or TV range than this will make it able to Not truncate those values.