OSX video workflow for a Mac?

[pinheadlarry]

the correct screenshots



vlcsnap-2014-07-19-16h29m18s4.png

You must be logged in to view this content; either login or register for the forum. The attached screen shots, before/after images, photos and graphics are created/posted for the benefit of site members. And you are invited to join our digital media community.

vlcsnap-2014-07-19-16h29m39s251.png

[sanlyn]

Fortunately, one only has to learn most of this stuff once, LOL!

As far as I know, Avisynth 32-bit and VirtualDub's newest 32-bit edition work in Windows 8. Others might have more info about that. There are 64-bit versions of those but, wouldn't you know it, there are barely a handful of 64-bit filters and all the best of 300+ filters are 32-bit. As for using them in Parallel, folks say they do it. I haven't used a Mac since 1998, so others will have to chime in.

ED: new images, post #21:
Let's see if I can understand something. Thanks to premiumcapture who sez the caps are DV wrapped in .mov container. No problem there, although DV does take a toll in some ways with NTSC VHS source. But if that's what we have, that's what we have.

The images are 720x528 (were they captured at that size??) and they look like improper deinterlace. Are these all from the same tape? The top letters look cleaner, but only a short sample of moving video can tell us more. There's plenty of the usual VHS noise in the shots, and looks as if the JVC is softening the noise. As for that three-letter logo -- these logos usually look pretty bad on most tapes anyway, and even on otherwise decent tapes. It can be cleaned up, but you'd need Avisynth to do it. One would need temporal filtering to do it or to demonstrate how, and something different for the clumpy fade-outs (which would actually look better if not deinterlaced, or if deinterlaced properly). Unfortunately temporal filters don't work on a single frame.

[pinheadlarry]

These shots came from the same tape. For those last screenshots, i opened in VLC (didn't resize window) and used the vlc screenshot shortcut.

i uploaded the 2 minute capture here.. https://mega.co.nz/#!gBcwALoA!BRiJmw...VNez7mvakPlv8w

For a capture card, would i be able to use something like an ATI 600 USB now that I am running Parallels?

[sanlyn]

Well, that's a prreeettttyyy big sample, LOL! Thanks for that. Definitely VHS, too, no mistake. Some of it actually looks OK, but tell us something about that tape. This is a retail job, or something recorded off tv, or what?

Give me a little time to look it over:

Meanwhile there's a dandy free tool for Windows called MediaInfo. Here's what it says about your sample:

[premiumcapture]

What did you want to do with these? DVDs? Files? You may be better off just capturing and keeping the DV unfiltered depending on what your goals are. The best way to figure out a workflow is figuring out what you're starting with and knowing when you will be finished. After that everything else figures itself out.

[pinheadlarry]

I am working with retail tapes.

edit for premiumcapture..

My main goal is to end up with a final copy ideal for youtube and a copy for downloads. I assume this can be accomplished with one file, but two different files would be ok too.

And I guess a master or raw file to save on an external hard drive that would allow me to put on DVD later on.

[premiumcapture]

Your final export will take place in FCP X or Compressor to YouTube. Your final file will end up being in H.264, so you may still want to consider getting the Elgato I mentioned.

With H.264, the codec is built on efficiency for clean digital video. More noise means a higher bitrate is necessary to make it look good. You will definitely need noise reduction along the way to make it look decent on YouTube.

How many tapes do you have in all. Did they ever get a digital release?

[pinheadlarry]

No digital release for these and everything on youtube / vimeo is horrible quality. I'm slowly building an archive for this niche, and am venturing into VHS.

I have about 30 tapes right now and plan on doing more in the future.

I'm confused because uploading straight to Youtube defeats everything i'm trying to do right now. If i upload to YT from FCPx, then i'll be stuck with this same poor quality, right? The 3rd party source i have is noticeably better, and i don't see a reason to spend all this time if i'm stuck with what it looks like right now.

also, i recently purchased the canopus. i don't plan to upgrade the capture equipment unless it's total lossless.

[premiumcapture]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinheadlarry

No digital release for these and everything on youtube / vimeo is horrible quality. I'm slowly building an archive for this niche, and am venturing into VHS.

I have about 30 tapes right now and plan on doing more in the future.

I'm confused because uploading straight to Youtube defeats everything i'm trying to do right now. If i upload to YT from FCPx, then i'll be stuck with this same poor quality, right? The 3rd party source i have is noticeably better, and i don't see a reason to spend all this time if i'm stuck with what it looks like right now.

also, i recently purchased the canopus. i don't plan to upgrade the capture equipment unless it's total lossless.

If you do a straight upload to youtube it kills it. Working in FCP X or Compressor will optimize for YouTube. With correct settings, it will not convert again. Many tape copies on youtube were not sourced from lossless copies, and video without noise reduction will waste the small bit rate you are allotted. For sharing on youtube, that step is the most critical.

[premiumcapture]

I am not sure how much filtering (if any) this person performed, but he uploaded VHS recorded on a VCR with an ADVC 300. I think, for what it is and what he used, it came out ok.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZad1oXQ_iU

[pinheadlarry]

Well now that I have parallels, I'm not limited to FCPx anymore. I captured into VirtualDub and was playing around with the filter packs provided from this site. I obviously have no idea what i'm doing right now, but I really could't produce any real improvements.

With the screens, and samples i've provided, is it possible to get to quality that my 3rd party achieved?

Also, my capture into virtualdub was 1 gig for about 1 minute?!

[premiumcapture]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinheadlarry

Well now that I have parallels, I'm not limited to FCPx anymore. I captured into VirtualDub and was playing around with the filter packs provided from this site. I obviously have no idea what i'm doing right now, but I really could't produce any real improvements.

With the screens, and samples i've provided, is it possible to get to quality that my 3rd party achieved?

Also, my capture into virtualdub was 1 gig for about 1 minute?!

The FCP capture is fine, the VirtualDub capture without any codecs should run maybe 70GB per hour. Change the color depth to 4:1:1 for DV. You might save yourself some trouble by importing through FCP and dragging them into VirtualDub, I dont know enough about DV to point you one way or another.

The most useful filters are not packaged with VirtualDub by default.

[lordsmurf]

I need to see a 250mb max sample clip.
Either Dropbox or FTP, not Mega. See also http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/news...mbers-how.html

Uncompress YUY2 = ~75gb/hour
Lagarith lossless = ~40-50gb/hour
Huffyuv lossless = ~35-45gb/hour
DV = 13gb/hour

Use Huffyuv or DV when using Mac. You'll also need Perian on the Mac, for Huffyuv access.

[pinheadlarry]

Here is a 100mb sample via dropbox. I captured into FCPx and uploaded the raw DV.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e7o9gmvt3pod3f8/VGsamp.mov


Also, is it possible to run something similar to a ATI 600 USB using parallels?

[lordsmurf]

That's not a good sample to filter with. It's too quick, scenes to brief. It's easy to overdo and underdo filters.
And I've never been clear on this -- does this need to be interlaced (view on TV) or deinterlaced/progressive (view online).

No, hardware is OS native, so no ATI 600 card in Parallels. You could use Bootcamp, however, maybe.

[premiumcapture]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

That's not a good sample to filter with. It's too quick, scenes to brief. It's easy to overdo and underdo filters.
And I've never been clear on this -- does this need to be interlaced (view on TV) or deinterlaced/progressive (view online).

No, hardware is OS native, so no ATI 600 card in Parallels. You could use Bootcamp, however, maybe.

The Diamond VC500 (PC edition) works with VirtualDub in Parallels. I don't know how it stacks up compared to the ATI but its like $40 and I didn't run into any compatibility issues.

[pinheadlarry]

These will all be for online viewing.

Here is another example from that same tape. I started to get some audio buzz and dropping in the beginning, so is it possible the tape is going bad?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8sjih5q9v9vt8gu/vgsamp2.mov

and here is a capture from another (but similiar) tape.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ap1wfiifx8qx0fb/VG13samp.mov

[premiumcapture]

you need a LTBC, the top of your video is wobbly

[lordsmurf]

vgsamp2.mov -- this an an UGLY deinterlaced video, full of artifacts.
VG13samp.mov -- I see some momentary tracking jitter (layman), but it the video looks fine.

Buzzing is always tracking related. Sometimes the HiFi signal is screwed (bad tracking on it only), and you must use the linear one. Linear may be mono, and can sometimes be missing entirely.

The biggest issue is the video is a "clip show", with multiple sources cameras. Everything is all over the place, in terms of errors and values. It was embedded in an edit, as nothing was cleaned up in advance. To completely clean it up, you'd need to manually re-edit the whole thing PLUS restore each segment separately. Yuck.

[sanlyn]

Lordsmurf beat me to it (again). The VG13samp clip is at least workable, although I can't say why it looks badly dinterlaced and then reinterlaced. One or two segments look like telecine video that was deintelaced, as there are duped frames periodically in some sections. Or as LS says, maybe mistracking.

Not only would vgsamp2 have to worked in Avisynth one shot at a time, but those shots are really unfixable IMO. It's deinterlaced (incorrectly) then encoded as interlaced, and a lot of it is roughly duped multi-generation copies. Maybe you can get some of it to stop looking so purple, but because detail and color resolution are so meager to begin with it would simply vaporize with denoising. It's a shame. Not the O.P.'s fault, though. Get out the Colt .45 and start hunting down the makers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinheadlarry

Also, my capture into virtualdub was 1 gig for about 1 minute?!

Maybe the capture is uncompressed RGB32 ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by premiumcapture

I am not sure how much filtering (if any) this person performed, but he uploaded VHS
recorded on a VCR with an ADVC 300. I think, for what it is and what he used, it came out ok.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZad1oXQ_iU

mm, sorry. I can't agree. The linked video is badly discolored and seriously noisy beyond repair. This shouldn't be a matter of opinion -- the damage is basic and the mistakes are obvious. True, most of the macroblocks are due to UTube's endless creativity in finding ways to wreck video, but the rest appears to be the owner's fault. Disheartening to see how the likes of uTube have trained folks to accept just about anything.

OK, maybe after breakfast I won't be such a grinch. Is it really that difficult to do a better job with video, even VHS? Or do people just let the video and the gear and software control them instead of the other way around?