Qualitative Difference - VHS transfer methods - Discuss
A discussion
What is the qualitative difference between all the VHS transfer methods. Whilst it is the aim to get as good a transfer as possible. How much is too much effort? For example, I have a 4 head Sharp VHS payer circa 1997. It is in good condition and has not been used heavily. I currently have it hooked up to a philips DVD recorder via scart and test played a commercial VHS film. The quality/playback looked perfect/very good for an old VHS. If I record this to DVD an the highest quality Mpeg2 setting (HQ) so about 1.5 hours per disc, could this really be improved upon? I did not detect any type of distortion or requirement for an external TBC. Is the requirement for a TBC dependent on the quality of each vhs tape i try to copy? I assume the DVD recorder is employing some form of TBC itself. -- Every method after this gets more complicated and more expensive. I also wonder what is the cost/benefit ratio involved in this. 1) I could hook it up to a computer and capture it to a HDD. Apart from minor colour correction and contrast changes, what more could this achieve? Could a better encoder be employed? This is less of a question and more of a discussion. At what point does the improvement become unnoticeable? |
This topic has been discussed to death, for years, here and elsewhere. The highest quality gear and methods for capturing VHS to a computer were determined a long time ago and tested ad nauseam. Recording VHS to DVD is not the best way. But if it looks good to you, enjoy. If other methods are too much effort for you, don't do it.
|
sanlyn hit the nail on the head. It is very much a personal thing. How good are your eyes, your playback/display system. How deep are your pockets, and how much time do you have to devote to DIY. No one else can make that call for you.
As to a TBC: in general one is needed, but with good recordings and good gear it may not be necessary to get an acceptable capture to DVD in all cases. There are a number of image flaws that can and usually do crop up in analog video tape, especially VHS. With skill and the right tools they can be mitigated to yield a better looking and sounding image. This is more complicated than a bit of adjustment to brightness, contract, color and tint. This sort of processing works best on loss-lessly captured video files by avoiding the compounding of losses resulting from compression. (DVD files are not loss-less compression.) If you and yours are happy with what you have recorded to DVD, declare victory and move on to something more fun. If you find this tape capture and restoration process fun - there is lots of information and help available on these forums. And if you need a better product, but don't want to devoted the time, consider hiring it out. |
About 5 years ago, I got into the methods discussed on this site, because I wasn't satisfied with the results from a "VHS to DVD" machine. Now keep in mind, I'm talking about digitizing/transferring my precious Home Recorded VHS tapes to DVD/Digital. The commercially made VHS transfers came out "ok", But my home recorded stuff came out too macro-blocked and horrible...good only maybe for "Safety copies"...But most all VHS looked great when played on VHS deck directly to TV. The first problem was, I wanted my home-made 1990's VHS's (Recorded on a so-so consumer grade VHS cam) to look like HD!... Never gonna happen!...But these tapes are Important enough to me, to go thru all the steps, trial and error, frustration, and $$$ to get the results I want...There is no Quick push-button remedy, as many on this site will attest to...How important are those tapes to you?, and how much time and effort are they worth to you?..I've been hacking away (off and on) for about 5 years now..and have tried the "Easy" USB,etc..and quickly returned it all, and followed the steps recommended here..Remember that a computer is digital,and it does not like a "dirty" analog VHS signal,and yes, the TBC process helps clean up that signal.
|
And compression, including DVD compression, does not like noise. Noise eats up bits that could be used for meaningful image. And most home video tape contains plenty of noise, especially video shot in poor light (that applies to both analog and digital video). A DVD made from noisy video will look worse that one made from a lower noise version of the same video.
|
Hello,
Thanks for the replies. Apologies for repeating an often asked question, which as you say, has been explored many times before and in much detail. What I think I was actually trying to find was an example comparing the quality difference of the same source footage transferred by: 1. DVD transfer 2. Basic usb capture device 3. Via a mini DV firewire camera 4. The best TBC VHS player, via firewire, captured and processed on PC 5. The best TBC player, external TBC unit, via capture card to PC. As I said, it would be nice to see the qualitative difference between all these methods with the same source footage. Here is my first attempt at the basic DVD transfer method. Burned at the HQ setting. This is just a 40 second example of the footage. This was from a Sharp (non-TBC as far as I am aware) VHS player straight to DVD. DVD was then ripped to HDD and then re-packaged as an .mp4 and uploaded to youtube. http://youtu.be/c3V75uIw5Kw Interested to know your thoughts. Obviously some further compression may have occurred when uploading to youtube, but you may be able to give an opinion of the quality based on my transfer method. |
Sorry, but no one can comment on UTube processing. It's completely off topic.
Equally beside the point is a DVD recording/lossless capture/bad capture/good capture that has been re-encoded to another format. Re-encodes are invalid for the kind of comparison you're looking for. Video encoding isn't like WinZIP or RAR. Perhaps you'd like to change your topic to the effects of reencoding specific types of captures from analog sources? |
1 Attachment(s)
Thanks for yoru reply!
Maybe I was not clear. I was not asking about youtube processing. I had just uploaded my file to youtube for people to view and assess its overall quality for my first VHS transfer attempt. I have now uploaded a small clip instead I would appreciate thoughts on its overall quality. I have no context or reference as to what a very good, good, poor, very poor transfer looks like. As per my original post, I am trying to assess whether I should look at a more in depth process, or if the quality I am getting is actually very good. This was transferred from a Sharp VHS player circa 1997 (non-TBC) straight to DVD via a separate recorder. I then ripped the DVD to the HDD and repackaged it as an .mpg. Here is a small section, thoughts welcome. |
Well.....a new sample is appreciated, and it does have obvious and typical defects that wouldn't be present with better capture methods. But what would be the point of enumerating problems if (a) they seem to have escaped your attention, and/or (b) they don't matter, and/or (c) avoiding or repairing them, as you've stated, wouldn't be worth the effort? The sample itself has too much detail loss and compression artifacts for serious effort anyway, and appears to have been cropped, resized, and re-encoded to eliminate borders (looks that way to me, since 4:3 input from VHS won't usually populate more than 704-pixels wide anyway. But I could be wrong about that in this case).
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Others will likely have a look at the sample and will likely see what I see. Or maybe not? Since you asked for details..... Your Philips recorder is somewhat unlike most DVD recorders, the original field order priority has apparently been reversed from that of your original. But maybe you had it set up that way. There are signs of crude interlace problems, split and broken lines and edges, and annoying line twitter. Your DVD recorder might advertise that is has a "tbc", but it didn't accomplish that much -- there's visible horizontal and vertical jitter and ripple (can't be repaired after capture, at least not without serious filtering). The re-encode has noisy compression artifacts and blocky distortion even when the camera and objects are fairly steady, and textures in large objects such as solid walls have mushy noise and distortion. There are some oversharpening artifacts, DCT ringing, some black edge halos, and several dropouts. The audio is encoded as MPEG-1 Layer2, an obsolete format designed for PC's, inferior to Dolby AC3. The original video might have been overexposed, but at any rate the capture was made at inappropriate IRE levels for the material. Highlights are blown out, gamma is too high and color looks anemic. Bright luma and chroma values were permanently clipped during capture (cannot be repaired), and chroma values extend beyond the valid range for PC, TV, or Web display, and are clipped as well. This makes it difficult to restore a realistic dynamic range, so color and contrast correction done later will not produce a very wide-range image. Most of its defects can't be repaired. The few that can would require another encode and more quality loss. |
Interesting....
What is apparent to me is that the re-encode is worse than the DVD rip. How am I to upload a representative example if the re-encode always results in compression artifacts etc... I re-encoded at what I thought were the highest quality settings (I did crop the edges as you suspected).....I shall experiment some more. |
Quote:
I often see people suggesting that video quality is "subjective", but it's rarely the case when discussing analog conversions. You essentially have errors, or a lack of errors. And there is nothing subjective about errors. Most analog errors are highly distracting, and make the content a nuisance to watch. Quote:
Quote:
But since you're PAL, I doubt you'd have issues. PAL doesn't have SLP/EP. So for you, it has no use. Quote:
[quote]The quality/playback looked perfect/very good for an old VHS. This always annoys me. Most people have low expections for tapes. But it's because they've never seen how good VHS-sourced video can look. Most likely you're still looking at a fuzzy and hazy tapes -- maybe even wiggly. You've never seen a properly sharpened VHS signal without chroma noisy, and with timing restored. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The computer method allows for more advanced restoration. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I reject this notion. When it comes to analog tapes, VHS especially, we're usually talking about the presence of video errors -- most of which are very distracting. We're not talking about mild color tweaks that makes you debate dark magenta vs. light purple. Quote:
I'd also mention that those that think they are the exception are usually just missing or overlooking an error that screams "use a TBC!" Quote:
Quote:
(2) Youtube reprocesses video*, which makes it hard to give feedback on a VHS conversion. * Even if you converted it to MP4 yourself, it's still reprocessed (and usually deinterlaced). Quote:
I see a huge dropped frame issue. Either the reprocessing messed it up, or you need TBC. Or both. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Thanks for all the great advice.
I have actually discovered another issue before I upload a non re-encoded example. When doing a 1:1 decryption of the DVD and renaming .VOB files to .mpeg I have noticed that the 1:1 rip suffers from ripple horizontally across the centre of the frame (especially when the camera pans). Is this to do with the setting on DVD Decrypter? The DVD plays fine (no ripple) on its own. Any ideas? In addition: I have discovered a local VHS transfer company which seem to employ all the hardware and methodology you suggest should be used as part of the process. They say they play the tape in a broadcast quality VCR and then via a TBC and colour correction hardware before capturing and saving to dvd and/or .avi. I therefore intend to transfer the same tape using their method to see what improvement I can expect. I will of course upload the resultant transfer here for your assessment. |
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.