Going from VHS to DVD is a waste of time!!!!!

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Going from VHS to DVD is a waste of time! I just recently realized it. Just like many of you,
I'd spend hours and days trying to convert some VHS footage to DVD. But the end result
was always worse than original, no matter what you'd do. The idea is to have the end result
identical to source. It will never happen. Why? Just think about it: first you digitize the video.
When you digitize the video, there's a certain degree of degradation. Then whatever codec
you use Huffyuv or DV would compress your footage. And then you further compress it
to DVD compliant MPEG 2 file. Now the most interesting thing is when you have your DVD
ready. You play your DVD and you convert the digital signal *BACK* to analog to display
on TV. So basically what you have is Analog->Digital->Compression->Compression->Analog.
And this is just as some claim to preserve a footage 'cause VHS deteriorates. But VHS only
deteriorates when you use it. When you just keep them in cool storage, nothing will happen
to them. So I found a good solution. Just copy VHS to another VHS or S-VHS. You have the
master copy which you store in your storage. To playback just use the 1st generation copy. Yes
there's a quality loss, but it is a tiny one. You don't go analog->digital->analog. You just go
analog->analog. The results are much better. I don't know about you, but I'm off DVDR market.

--Leonid
48 answers Last reply
More about going waste time
  1. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
    > Going from VHS to DVD is a waste of time! I just recently realized it. Just like many of you,
    > I'd spend hours and days trying to convert some VHS footage to DVD. But the end result
    > was always worse than original, no matter what you'd do. The idea is to have the end result
    > identical to source. It will never happen. Why? Just think about it: first you digitize the video.
    > When you digitize the video, there's a certain degree of degradation. Then whatever codec
    > you use Huffyuv or DV would compress your footage. And then you further compress it
    > to DVD compliant MPEG 2 file. Now the most interesting thing is when you have your DVD
    > ready. You play your DVD and you convert the digital signal *BACK* to analog to display
    > on TV. So basically what you have is Analog->Digital->Compression->Compression->Analog.
    > And this is just as some claim to preserve a footage 'cause VHS deteriorates. But VHS only
    > deteriorates when you use it. When you just keep them in cool storage, nothing will happen
    > to them. So I found a good solution. Just copy VHS to another VHS or S-VHS. You have the
    > master copy which you store in your storage. To playback just use the 1st generation copy. Yes
    > there's a quality loss, but it is a tiny one. You don't go analog->digital->analog. You just go
    > analog->analog. The results are much better. I don't know about you, but I'm off DVDR market.
    >
    > --Leonid

    All good points Leonid,

    There's an old saying, "Garbage in, Garbage out". However, there's some
    trouble with your theories.

    1) Yes you digitize it, but you'll get an exact copy of how it plays
    right this minute. And yes that will be about as good the original
    copy.. However, I personally have a Canopus-300 which actually cleans up
    some of the shortcomings of the video signal, plus once you digitize
    your footage, and can run a few filters and a little tweaking on color
    corrections, and you can actually end up with a better copy of that
    footage. I capture with a very high data rate (not DV) in a near
    uncompressed format. The losses from this are indistinguishable to the
    human eye, if any.

    2) I don't know if you've been to the local Best Buy lately, but it's
    getting more and more difficult to find a single VHS tape player these
    days.. At the current rate the VHS player will go the rate of the
    turntable by next year. So while yes, you might have that perfect copy
    of the Master tape, you'll not find a way to every play it again in a
    few short years.

    3) In another theory, A final step of outputting to an analog TV will
    also be a thing of the past, as we look forward to HDTV. So your theory
    here is also a moot point too.

    But, yes.. True that the original would have been much better off going
    straight to digital DV, but I think the whole point is not to try to fix
    what was done in some kind of remaster, but more like to create
    something that will allow you be able to play it at all years down the line.

    -Richard
  2. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Interesting discussion. I am beginning to think about converting some of my
    most precious VHS tapes. As a start should I copy them to MiniDV maybe via
    a bit of editing on the PC and keep a copy on DV tape? I don't have a DVD
    writer yet. That's another consideration - do I buy a burner for the PC or
    an under TV recorder? All these things to addle the brain!!

    Cheers

    Margaret

    Remove giggling if replying by email
    "Richard Ragon" <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote in message
    news:QP7bc.12134809$Id.2029878@news.easynews.com...
    > Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
    > > Going from VHS to DVD is a waste of time! I just recently realized it.
    Just like many of you,
    > > I'd spend hours and days trying to convert some VHS footage to DVD. But
    the end result
    > > was always worse than original, no matter what you'd do. The idea is to
    have the end result
    > > identical to source. It will never happen. Why? Just think about it:
    first you digitize the video.
    > > When you digitize the video, there's a certain degree of degradation.
    Then whatever codec
    > > you use Huffyuv or DV would compress your footage. And then you further
    compress it
    > > to DVD compliant MPEG 2 file. Now the most interesting thing is when you
    have your DVD
    > > ready. You play your DVD and you convert the digital signal *BACK* to
    analog to display
    > > on TV. So basically what you have is
    Analog->Digital->Compression->Compression->Analog.
    > > And this is just as some claim to preserve a footage 'cause VHS
    deteriorates. But VHS only
    > > deteriorates when you use it. When you just keep them in cool storage,
    nothing will happen
    > > to them. So I found a good solution. Just copy VHS to another VHS or
    S-VHS. You have the
    > > master copy which you store in your storage. To playback just use the
    1st generation copy. Yes
    > > there's a quality loss, but it is a tiny one. You don't go
    analog->digital->analog. You just go
    > > analog->analog. The results are much better. I don't know about you, but
    I'm off DVDR market.
    > >
    > > --Leonid
    >
    > All good points Leonid,
    >
    > There's an old saying, "Garbage in, Garbage out". However, there's some
    > trouble with your theories.
    >
    > 1) Yes you digitize it, but you'll get an exact copy of how it plays
    > right this minute. And yes that will be about as good the original
    > copy.. However, I personally have a Canopus-300 which actually cleans up
    > some of the shortcomings of the video signal, plus once you digitize
    > your footage, and can run a few filters and a little tweaking on color
    > corrections, and you can actually end up with a better copy of that
    > footage. I capture with a very high data rate (not DV) in a near
    > uncompressed format. The losses from this are indistinguishable to the
    > human eye, if any.
    >
    > 2) I don't know if you've been to the local Best Buy lately, but it's
    > getting more and more difficult to find a single VHS tape player these
    > days.. At the current rate the VHS player will go the rate of the
    > turntable by next year. So while yes, you might have that perfect copy
    > of the Master tape, you'll not find a way to every play it again in a
    > few short years.
    >
    > 3) In another theory, A final step of outputting to an analog TV will
    > also be a thing of the past, as we look forward to HDTV. So your theory
    > here is also a moot point too.
    >
    > But, yes.. True that the original would have been much better off going
    > straight to digital DV, but I think the whole point is not to try to fix
    > what was done in some kind of remaster, but more like to create
    > something that will allow you be able to play it at all years down the
    line.
    >
    > -Richard
    >
  3. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On 2 Apr 2004 03:27:36 GMT, Leonid Makarovsky <venom@cs.bu.edu> wrote:

    >Going from VHS to DVD is a waste of time! I just recently realized it. Just like many of you,
    >I'd spend hours and days trying to convert some VHS footage to DVD. But the end result
    >was always worse than original, no matter what you'd do.

    The end result of ANY analog copy is always worse than the original.
    It can be a big difference, or a very small one, but that IS
    guaranteed.

    >Why? Just think about it: first you digitize the video.
    >When you digitize the video, there's a certain degree of degradation.

    This, however, can be very, very minimal, if you do it right. First
    rule: capture uncompressed. Analog video is inherently noisy, and
    noise is a bad thing to retain when you're using typical DCT-based
    compression algorithms.

    >Then whatever codec
    >you use Huffyuv or DV would compress your footage.

    If you use Huffyuv, though, you don't degrade the video any further.
    That's a lossless compression.

    >And then you further compress it to DVD compliant MPEG 2 file.

    This is where you're missing what's critical in this process: kill all
    the noise. You need to filter the analog noise, as best as possible.
    There about 1000 such filters that run under VirtualDub. Many work
    very nicely, eliminating the VHS tape noise well without causing
    visible damage to the VHS image.

    If you don't eliminate the noise, the MPEG-2 compression algorithms
    will do their best to keep that noise visible, at the expense of some
    of the actual content you want.

    Another thing for VHS conversion: the bandwidth of VHS is so low,
    you're really no worse off capturing to 352x480/576 vs. 720x480/576.
    That effectively doubles the per-frame "bit budget" for I-Frames --
    less compression means less artifacting

    >Now the most interesting thing is when you have your DVD
    >ready. You play your DVD and you convert the digital signal *BACK* to analog to display
    >on TV. So basically what you have is Analog->Digital->Compression->Compression->Analog.

    No one cares about compression in the toolchain, it makes no
    difference. LOSSY compression is what you worry about. You really
    don't want to capture VHS in DV, since you can't filter the VHS before
    the compression is applied. Grab it directly, uncompressed. Filter it.
    Only then should you encode it.

    >And this is just as some claim to preserve a footage 'cause VHS deteriorates. But VHS only
    >deteriorates when you use it.

    No, that's not even remotely true. Tape degrades just sitting there.
    And being an analog medium, the quality will degrade a bit, just
    sitting there. Eventually, you'll find dropouts that muck up sync,
    causing the tape to be increasingly less playable. I've done
    restorations of just such tapes, only about 8 years old at the time,
    but already starting to degrade.

    >When you just keep them in cool storage, nothing will happen
    >to them.

    Also not true. Storing them properly (moderately cool, moderately
    humid, stored on end, not flat) will prolog their life some, but they
    won't last indefinitely. Or even remotely as long as properly stored
    DVDs.

    > So I found a good solution. Just copy VHS to another VHS or S-VHS.

    You're going to lose quality there, as well. Worse yet, if you don't
    run a TBC between the two decks, you're likely to have sync errors
    too. Not that backups of any kind aren't better than no backups. But
    tape copies are worse than DVD copies.

    When I put my movie on DVD (restored from the original 8mm and the
    SVHS master), my DVDs were actually much, much better in quality than
    our original, first generation VHS copies. You lose tons of quality in
    each new VHS generation, it's not a trivial amount.

    >You have the
    >master copy which you store in your storage. To playback just use the 1st generation copy. Yes
    >there's a quality loss, but it is a tiny one. You don't go analog->digital->analog.

    If you know what you're doing, making a DVD from a VHS will yield a
    very satisfactory result. Like everything else with DVD, if you don't,
    it won't -- there's still a bit of art and engineering to the process,
    it's not a cookie-cutter thing yet.

    Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting
    dhaynie@jersey.net| Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004!
    "Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com
  4. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > If you know what you're doing, making a DVD from a VHS will yield a
    > very satisfactory result. Like everything else with DVD, if you don't,
    > it won't -- there's still a bit of art and engineering to the process,
    > it's not a cookie-cutter thing yet.

    And that's the bottom line, right there. It won't be perfect but how
    many people will _actually_ be able to tell the difference between the
    DVD copy and the original VHS/Beta tape?

    Reminds me of mp3s several years ago. The ng had several "golden ear"
    participants who blathered on about "quality". A listening test was
    devised to see if _anyone_ could tell the difference using different
    encoders and bitrates. Out of several _hundred_ participants, there was
    only one guy who could verifiably tell a 128 from a 320 encode. Almost
    none of the "golden ear" crowd participated, not surprisingly. Unless
    you were an experienced listener and knew what to listen for, you just
    _couldn't_ tell the difference. I posted an original 160 encode of a
    song and then re-encoded it... oh about 10 times. That's lossy
    compression X 10. No one could tell which one was the original.

    I've got a lot of irreplaceable family footage on 8mm and VHS tape that
    I'm just getting ready to convert. Am I expecting perfection? Not at
    all. But I'll feel a hell of a lot better, and will have a chance of
    actually viewing the footage, in 10 years when I've got them archived on
    DVD rather than a vhs tape.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Dave Haynie wrote:
    >
    > On 2 Apr 2004 03:27:36 GMT, Leonid Makarovsky <venom@cs.bu.edu> wrote:
    >
    > >Going from VHS to DVD is a waste of time! I just recently realized it. Just like many of you,
    > >I'd spend hours and days trying to convert some VHS footage to DVD. But the end result
    > >was always worse than original, no matter what you'd do.
    >
    > The end result of ANY analog copy is always worse than the original.
    > It can be a big difference, or a very small one, but that IS
    > guaranteed.

    Of course, the main point is that the quality of the vhs degrades
    with time. That's the main reason to story it digitally.

    > >Why? Just think about it: first you digitize the video.
    > >When you digitize the video, there's a certain degree of degradation.
    >
    > This, however, can be very, very minimal, if you do it right. First
    > rule: capture uncompressed. Analog video is inherently noisy, and
    > noise is a bad thing to retain when you're using typical DCT-based
    > compression algorithms.

    Good luck capturing uncompressed! Better use Huffyuv (like stated
    below) or mjpeg (lossy).

    > >Then whatever codec
    > >you use Huffyuv or DV would compress your footage.
    >
    > If you use Huffyuv, though, you don't degrade the video any further.
    > That's a lossless compression.
    >
    > >And then you further compress it to DVD compliant MPEG 2 file.
    >
    > This is where you're missing what's critical in this process: kill all
    > the noise. You need to filter the analog noise, as best as possible.

    Yes, that's very important. Especially when encoding to mpeg2.

    > There about 1000 such filters that run under VirtualDub. Many work
    > very nicely, eliminating the VHS tape noise well without causing
    > visible damage to the VHS image.

    This is very false. Depends a bit on the source. If your source
    is sports, music clips, etc, there's in fact no good filter which
    runs under VirtualDub and can filter the noise out without
    blending and smoothing too much.

    You might want to look at AviSynth instead.

    > If you don't eliminate the noise, the MPEG-2 compression algorithms
    > will do their best to keep that noise visible, at the expense of some
    > of the actual content you want.

    Yes, and you will see that very clearly.

    > Another thing for VHS conversion: the bandwidth of VHS is so low,
    > you're really no worse off capturing to 352x480/576 vs. 720x480/576.
    > That effectively doubles the per-frame "bit budget" for I-Frames --
    > less compression means less artifacting

    Partly false. The bandwidth is indeed very low. But, when capping
    with bt8x8/cx2388x some lousy resizers kick in when capping at 384x576
    (360x480 for NTSC) or lower.

    Note that your capture size "is" not the used sample rate of the card.
    The sample rate (using by the card) is always fixed and well above
    full PAL/NTSC, after sampling the signal is resampled at the requested
    capture size.

    > >Now the most interesting thing is when you have your DVD
    > >ready. You play your DVD and you convert the digital signal *BACK* to analog to display
    > >on TV. So basically what you have is Analog->Digital->Compression->Compression->Analog.
    >
    > No one cares about compression in the toolchain, it makes no
    > difference. LOSSY compression is what you worry about. You really
    > don't want to capture VHS in DV, since you can't filter the VHS before
    > the compression is applied. Grab it directly, uncompressed. Filter it.
    > Only then should you encode it.

    You never captured anything, did you? Or do you have a hdd of 1 TB?

    > >And this is just as some claim to preserve a footage 'cause VHS deteriorates. But VHS only
    > >deteriorates when you use it.
    >
    > No, that's not even remotely true. Tape degrades just sitting there.
    > And being an analog medium, the quality will degrade a bit, just
    > sitting there. Eventually, you'll find dropouts that muck up sync,
    > causing the tape to be increasingly less playable. I've done
    > restorations of just such tapes, only about 8 years old at the time,
    > but already starting to degrade.

    Yes, true.

    Wilbert
  6. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Leonid Makarovsky" <venom@cs.bu.edu> wrote in message
    news:c4imj8$l92$1@news3.bu.edu...
    > Going from VHS to DVD is a waste of time! I just recently realized it.
    Just like many of you,
    > I'd spend hours and days trying to convert some VHS footage to DVD. But
    the end result
    > was always worse than original, no matter what you'd do. The idea is to
    have the end result
    > identical to source. It will never happen. Why? Just think about it: first
    you digitize the video.
    > When you digitize the video, there's a certain degree of degradation. Then
    whatever codec
    > you use Huffyuv or DV would compress your footage. And then you further
    compress it
    > to DVD compliant MPEG 2 file. Now the most interesting thing is when you
    have your DVD
    > ready. You play your DVD and you convert the digital signal *BACK* to
    analog to display
    > on TV. So basically what you have is
    Analog->Digital->Compression->Compression->Analog.
    > And this is just as some claim to preserve a footage 'cause VHS
    deteriorates. But VHS only
    > deteriorates when you use it. When you just keep them in cool storage,
    nothing will happen
    > to them. So I found a good solution. Just copy VHS to another VHS or
    S-VHS. You have the
    > master copy which you store in your storage. To playback just use the 1st
    generation copy. Yes
    > there's a quality loss, but it is a tiny one. You don't go
    analog->digital->analog. You just go
    > analog->analog. The results are much better. I don't know about you, but
    I'm off DVDR market.

    Just go get a LiteOn standalone DVD recorder and you won't be able to tell
    the difference between the original tape and the DVD. Then you can dup the
    DVD for your family and friends on your computer. Now you can view any part
    of your tape nearly instantly by jumping directly to the chapter. Random
    access is probably the most important feature that DVD has over VHS, because
    without it you probably won't even watch all those old videos.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:05:16 +0200, Wilbert Dijkhof
    <w.j.dijkhof@tue.nl> wrote:

    >Dave Haynie wrote:
    >>
    >> On 2 Apr 2004 03:27:36 GMT, Leonid Makarovsky <venom@cs.bu.edu> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Going from VHS to DVD is a waste of time! I just recently realized it. Just like many of you,
    >> >I'd spend hours and days trying to convert some VHS footage to DVD. But the end result
    >> >was always worse than original, no matter what you'd do.

    >> This, however, can be very, very minimal, if you do it right. First
    >> rule: capture uncompressed. Analog video is inherently noisy, and
    >> noise is a bad thing to retain when you're using typical DCT-based
    >> compression algorithms.

    >Good luck capturing uncompressed!

    No big deal for faster systems, these days. Less still if you're
    capturing in 4:2:2 or 4:2:0, rather than 4:4:4.

    > Better use Huffyuv (like stated below)

    Yeah, HuffYUV is a fine capture CODEC.

    > or mjpeg (lossy).

    Partly false. MJPEG, like DV and MPEG-2, is DCT based, and is going to
    have the same issues as these others formats, with regard to noise.
    With a virtually noise-free analog input, MJPEG, DV, or even
    I-Frame-Only MPEG-2 could be reasonable capture formats. When the
    video is noisy, though, you're damaging the video before you have a
    chance to work with it. This will never yield the best result.

    >> There about 1000 such filters that run under VirtualDub. Many work
    >> very nicely, eliminating the VHS tape noise well without causing
    >> visible damage to the VHS image.

    >This is very false. Depends a bit on the source. If your source
    >is sports, music clips, etc, there's in fact no good filter which
    >runs under VirtualDub and can filter the noise out without
    >blending and smoothing too much.

    False. All [actually] 20 to 30 noise filtering plug-ins I have here
    can be tweaked for tradeoffs between filtering and smoothing. I use
    both spatial and temporal filters, selective blurring (either as a
    filter, or via TMPGenc's block noise filter, which is basically just
    an adaptive low-pass filter) to deal with this kind of noise. I've yet
    to find a situation I can't fix well. It may take some effort, and of
    course, knowlege of the tools. You might walk into my woodshop and
    claim you can't build a proper oak cabinet with the tools there; that
    doesn't mean I can't.

    >You might want to look at AviSynth instead.

    All of the AVISynth plug-ins are available for VirtualDub, far as I
    know, and of course, AVISynth can load any VirtualDub plug-in. I
    actually run VirtualDub plug-ins, most of the time, in Vegas, via a
    bridge plug-in.

    >> If you don't eliminate the noise, the MPEG-2 compression algorithms
    >> will do their best to keep that noise visible, at the expense of some
    >> of the actual content you want.
    >
    >Yes, and you will see that very clearly.

    BUT only if you know what to look for. Beginners, folks new to digital
    video, I think, are grabbing their VHS stuff, making DVDs, and seeing
    quality issues. They don't know enough about getting from point A to
    point B to really understand why they're not happy with the results.
    Hell, there are plenty of postings here from people having trouble
    getting good DVDs from clean DV sources. It is still very much a kind
    of art form.

    >> Another thing for VHS conversion: the bandwidth of VHS is so low,
    >> you're really no worse off capturing to 352x480/576 vs. 720x480/576.
    >> That effectively doubles the per-frame "bit budget" for I-Frames --
    >> less compression means less artifacting

    >Partly false. The bandwidth is indeed very low. But, when capping
    >with bt8x8/cx2388x some lousy resizers kick in when capping at 384x576
    >(360x480 for NTSC) or lower.

    Sure, if you have a capture card that can't run different sample-rate
    clocks (pixel clocks are always divided down from the ~28 or ~14MHz
    clock you'll typically create via phase lock in a sync processor), you
    don't want to make the device driver resize. The best rule for any
    processing is to bring it in as dry as possible, then make it wet when
    you have an "undo" button. However, IF your capture card doesn't
    compromise half D1 captures, you may find raw captures are far more
    practical.

    >> >Now the most interesting thing is when you have your DVD
    >> >ready. You play your DVD and you convert the digital signal *BACK* to analog to display
    >> >on TV. So basically what you have is Analog->Digital->Compression->Compression->Analog.

    >> No one cares about compression in the toolchain, it makes no
    >> difference. LOSSY compression is what you worry about. You really
    >> don't want to capture VHS in DV, since you can't filter the VHS before
    >> the compression is applied. Grab it directly, uncompressed. Filter it.
    >> Only then should you encode it.

    >You never captured anything, did you?

    I have captured hundreds if not thousands of hours of video, from
    analog and digital sources. I've been working in computer video since
    the 80's, both professionally and as a hobbiest.

    > Or do you have a hdd of 1 TB?

    Between the two main work systems here in my office, I have a bit over
    1/2TB. Another 200GB or so between the three other office/lab
    computers, a "floating" 100GB Firewire drive, a 250GB NAS box for
    backups, another 100GB or so free on my kids computers, and a little
    free space on the TiVo and the MAME system, all on the network (which
    really does need to be upgraded to 1000-Base-T, though I run Firewire
    between the two main systems).

    Why do you ask?

    Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting
    dhaynie@jersey.net| Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004!
    "Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com
  8. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:54:01 -0500, "Morrmar" <morrmar@myway.com>
    wrote:

    >> If you know what you're doing, making a DVD from a VHS will yield a
    >> very satisfactory result. Like everything else with DVD, if you don't,
    >> it won't -- there's still a bit of art and engineering to the process,
    >> it's not a cookie-cutter thing yet.

    >And that's the bottom line, right there. It won't be perfect but how
    >many people will _actually_ be able to tell the difference between the
    >DVD copy and the original VHS/Beta tape?

    Most simply won't know what to look for. As well, they probably won't
    care -- fact is, people were largely satisfied with VHS quality. Not
    everyone -- I didn't buy pre-recorded VHS. But enough that it's long
    been the acid test of consumer acceptability. Is it VHS quality? No?
    Fix it. Yes? Ship it.

    >Reminds me of mp3s several years ago. The ng had several "golden ear"
    >participants who blathered on about "quality". A listening test was
    >devised to see if _anyone_ could tell the difference using different
    >encoders and bitrates. Out of several _hundred_ participants, there was
    >only one guy who could verifiably tell a 128 from a 320 encode.

    Funny thing was, MPEG Layer 3 was originally defined to offer
    transparent audio quality at ISDN rates (64Kb/s mono, 128kb/s stereo),
    for use in broadcasting. It did that job better than anything that
    came before, no one complained. We had to get the geeks involved for
    that.

    >Almost none of the "golden ear" crowd participated, not surprisingly.

    Some of those folks have issues. Some aren't really golden ears, but
    got that kind of reputation, and hey, if you're not a golden ears guy
    yourself, how do you know they're not wrong? Especially in the
    "Audiophile" world, where most of the audio quality stuff is a little
    science mized with heapin' helpin's of mythology, bad science, snake
    oil salesmen, and "emperor's new clothes" purchase decisions. They
    don't like too much actual reality, like objective blind tests, to be
    introduced into that melee.

    You probably have a few legit guys, too, who (like me, for example),
    cannot hear as well as we could, say, back in our 20's. I still think
    my ears work very well, I hear things other folks don't, but I'm not
    making a living on 'em. And I'm honestly not sure I could pull 320's
    from 128's. Maybe on my best sound system, on music I know very well.
    But in general? Now, if you're talkin' WMAs, that's another story --
    just listen for the pre-echos. That stuff gives you fatigue; lots of
    people will pick those out easily.

    >Unless
    >you were an experienced listener and knew what to listen for, you just
    >_couldn't_ tell the difference.

    Officially, MPEG Layer 3 is transparent at 192Kb/s, last I saw
    something speced out from Farunhofer. It's something of a judgement
    call, the whole transparency thing. For most listeners, you're trained
    yourself to not care about marginal audio. Thus the acceptability in
    the consumer market of FM radio, Philips cassette, MTS Television, and
    of course, VHS.

    >I posted an original 160 encode of a
    >song and then re-encoded it... oh about 10 times. That's lossy
    >compression X 10. No one could tell which one was the original.

    That's also a kind of best case situation. MPEG is always looking to
    do the same kind of post-transform filtering. So when you decompress
    back to a WAV, then recompress (especially with the same encoder),
    you're not really tossing out much in the way of useful information.
    If you have artifacts, those will cause this process to decay a
    little, but the best compression algorithms don't (otherwise, you'd
    hear them, too). Folks used to do generational testing on MD's
    (ATRAC). Back in the old days, you'd hear pronounced degradation after
    about 5 passes. Today, you can go 20 or 30 generations and not hear a
    problem.

    What you will find problematic is generational loss when transcoding.
    For example, put an MP3 on an MD recorder, especially as a lower
    bitrate ATRAC3 file. Change WMA into MP3. You'll hear it, pretty
    easily. The different encoders all try to do the same basic job, but
    they do it in different ways, and those kind sort of beat against each
    other.

    >I've got a lot of irreplaceable family footage on 8mm and VHS tape that
    >I'm just getting ready to convert. Am I expecting perfection? Not at
    >all. But I'll feel a hell of a lot better, and will have a chance of
    >actually viewing the footage, in 10 years when I've got them archived on
    >DVD rather than a vhs tape.

    Another thing to consider -- are you doing any editing? If you're
    planning to edit your home video, you'll find it easy to bring
    first-generation video into digital, edit there, and produce a DVD
    that's dramatically better than any basic roll-edit to VHS, in both
    quality and what you're capable of doing. Especially if your original
    camcorder video isn't VHS -- everything else was at least a hair
    better, some formats (SVHS, Hi8) dramatically better. With Video8/Hi8
    and a clean video, you can also use most Digital8 cameras to capture
    your video without a trip through the video DACs of a capture board.
    The quality this way is quite good, unless the video's very noisy.
    Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting
    dhaynie@jersey.net| Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004!
    "Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com
  9. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    I'd like to thank you all for your responses to my yesterday's post and wish
    you a happy belated April Fools. (:

    I had no idea that my post would start a serious discussions. I did a similar
    thing on rec.audio.pro, got about 22 different *serious* responses half of
    which were calling me names. While in audio what I was saying was irrelevant,
    there's however some truth to what I wrote here. No matter what you do, the end
    quality of resulting DVD is worse than original VHS. It, of course, doesn't
    mean that you shouldn't be going from VHS to DVD. This is the only solution
    these days. But if you compress the lossless Huffyuv codec 10 times, how can
    you not lose the information?

    The claim that LiteOn DVD recorder records without a quality loss is simply
    untrue. I guarantee you that the footage that has a lots of motions will show
    some small square pixels not found on original. I capture with my Philips based
    TV Tuner card into Huffyuv full resolution and then post compress it with
    highest settings of TMPGEnc. I guarantee you that this way is much better than
    any stand alone DVD recorder.

    --Leonid
  10. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Leonid Makarovsky" wrote ...
    > I'd like to thank you all for your responses to my yesterday's
    > post and wish you a happy belated April Fools. (:

    I was quite amused at both of your prank threads. :-)

    OTOH, if you have lurked either the audio or video newsgroups
    for any length of time, you will note that your joke statements
    have been essentially made in months/years past by perfectly
    serious (although deluded) newbies.

    It also illustrates the very wide range of people on these
    newsgroups, ranging from quite knowledgable professionals
    who thought the statements were too stupid to respond to, to
    people just as confused (but with a strong dose of unwarranted
    self-confidence) as your imaginary author of the postings. :-)
  11. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Richard Ragon <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote:
    : copy.. However, I personally have a Canopus-300 which actually cleans up
    : some of the shortcomings of the video signal, plus once you digitize
    : your footage, and can run a few filters and a little tweaking on color
    : corrections, and you can actually end up with a better copy of that
    : footage. I capture with a very high data rate (not DV) in a near
    : uncompressed format. The losses from this are indistinguishable to the
    : human eye, if any.

    I thought Canopus was using Canopus DV codec. Let me know otherwise. I was
    looking into Canopus, but they told me the best way to buy this Canopus MBR
    or smth that captures directly in MPEG2. But this way they also compress
    the audio. And I want my audio to be PCM.

    --Leonid
  12. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Wilbert Dijkhof <w.j.dijkhof@tue.nl> wrote:
    :> There about 1000 such filters that run under VirtualDub. Many work
    :> very nicely, eliminating the VHS tape noise well without causing
    :> visible damage to the VHS image.

    : This is very false. Depends a bit on the source. If your source
    : is sports, music clips, etc, there's in fact no good filter which

    Yes my source is mostly music (live concerts) and sports (ice hockey). And I
    just can't find the filter. Most of the VHS I capture from are very good
    quality though so AS-IS looks just great.

    : runs under VirtualDub and can filter the noise out without
    : blending and smoothing too much.

    : You might want to look at AviSynth instead.

    And what would you recommend?

    : Partly false. The bandwidth is indeed very low. But, when capping
    : with bt8x8/cx2388x some lousy resizers kick in when capping at 384x576
    : (360x480 for NTSC) or lower.

    I capture with Philips SAA713xxx

    : Note that your capture size "is" not the used sample rate of the card.
    : The sample rate (using by the card) is always fixed and well above
    : full PAL/NTSC, after sampling the signal is resampled at the requested
    : capture size.

    So would you recommend doing 640x480 rather than 704x480?

    --Leonid
  13. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:38:25 GMT, dhaynie@jersey.net (Dave Haynie)
    wrote:

    >Another thing for VHS conversion: the bandwidth of VHS is so low,
    >you're really no worse off capturing to 352x480/576 vs. 720x480/576.

    What about capturing 704x480/576, filtering, etc., then resizing
    (Avisynth's HorizontalReduceBy2, for instance) to 352x480/576? The
    horizontal resolution for analog material, after all, is a subjective
    thing. Thus, I prefer to rely on the, more accurate, subjectivity of
    my card at capture time, then bring down the resolution to my own
    subjectivity (visual limitations) when it comes to playing time. In
    the meantime, filters may have a more accurate material to operate
    upon.

    >That effectively doubles the per-frame "bit budget" for I-Frames --
    >less compression means less artifacting

    With half-D1, you can encode in 100% CQ mode (D1 DVD quality is around
    65% CQ) . The bitrate would then usually be 6000+, even close to 8000
    at times.

    >Tape degrades just sitting there.

    And even worse if you leave it inside the VCR.

    >Storing them properly (moderately cool, moderately
    >humid, stored on end, not flat) will prolog their life some, but they
    >won't last indefinitely. Or even remotely as long as properly stored
    >DVDs.

    Not that people should forget that discs also have a lifetime. But
    then, by cloning, you can perpetuate the species.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Morrmar" <morrmar@myway.com> wrote in message
    news:Faebc.12$6D1.2@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
    > Reminds me of mp3s several years ago. The ng had several "golden ear"
    > participants who blathered on about "quality". A listening test was
    > devised to see if _anyone_ could tell the difference using different
    > encoders and bitrates. Out of several _hundred_ participants, there was
    > only one guy who could verifiably tell a 128 from a 320 encode. Almost
    > none of the "golden ear" crowd participated, not surprisingly. Unless
    > you were an experienced listener and knew what to listen for, you just
    > _couldn't_ tell the difference. I posted an original 160 encode of a
    > song and then re-encoded it... oh about 10 times. That's lossy
    > compression X 10. No one could tell which one was the original.

    It's true that most people can't tell the difference, and largely it's an
    issue of education. Once someone knows what MP3 does to the audio it's
    really easy to spot later on (and it's annoying if you're a producer like
    me. ;-) ).

    It also has to do with the source material being used. If you encode a "rock
    band", there's very little difference in terms of dynamic range, frequency
    response, or sound staging. But play any sort of trance/electronica that has
    a a very wide audio spectrum, lots of dynamic range, and seriously takes
    advantage of the stereo field, it makes a HUGE difference.

    So just because no one "could tell a difference" doesn't mean that it's true
    across the board. It was, for THAT MATERIAL YOU USED.

    -->Neil
  15. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <c4l19f$qi3$5@news3.bu.edu>, venom@cs.bu.edu
    says...
    > Wilbert Dijkhof <w.j.dijkhof@tue.nl> wrote:
    > :> There about 1000 such filters that run under VirtualDub. Many work
    > :> very nicely, eliminating the VHS tape noise well without causing
    > :> visible damage to the VHS image.
    >
    > : This is very false. Depends a bit on the source. If your source
    > : is sports, music clips, etc, there's in fact no good filter which
    >
    > Yes my source is mostly music (live concerts) and sports (ice hockey). And I
    > just can't find the filter. Most of the VHS I capture from are very good
    > quality though so AS-IS looks just great.
    >
    > : runs under VirtualDub and can filter the noise out without
    > : blending and smoothing too much.
    >
    > : You might want to look at AviSynth instead.
    >
    > And what would you recommend?

    A good quick filter chain in VDub (probably use the same
    in AVISynth, 'cept you have to write the script):

    1. Static Noise Reduction (strength 4-8)
    http://www.shdon.com/view.php?doc=vid_snr

    2. Dynamic Noise Reduction (strength 4-8)
    http://www.shdon.com/view.php?doc=vid_dnr

    3. Resize down to 352x480/576 if needed
    - Also good to crop out tracking noise and re-center
    the image during this step. Use the cropping button
    with the resize filter selected, crop off the bottom of
    the image, write down the resulting height (e.g. 472).
    Then configure the resize dialog. Resize to the
    resulting height (e.g. 472) and the desired width (352).
    I use Lanczos3. Use the letterbox checkbox and set the
    desired output height to 352x480/576 and it should
    nicely center the cropped image vertically.

    That filter chain works nicely for clean source, other
    problems require different filters. Speed is around 3x
    or 4x normal on my AthlonXP 2600+ with DDR333.

    >
    > : Partly false. The bandwidth is indeed very low. But, when capping
    > : with bt8x8/cx2388x some lousy resizers kick in when capping at 384x576
    > : (360x480 for NTSC) or lower.
    >
    > I capture with Philips SAA713xxx
    >
    > : Note that your capture size "is" not the used sample rate of the card.
    > : The sample rate (using by the card) is always fixed and well above
    > : full PAL/NTSC, after sampling the signal is resampled at the requested
    > : capture size.
    >
    > So would you recommend doing 640x480 rather than 704x480?
    >

    Test your capture card, find some good clean footage and
    capture at 720x, 704x, 352x, 360x, 640x and see which
    comes in the cleanest. Or google around and try to find
    out if anyone has posted exact data for that chip.
  16. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <btrs60htmvv2m8q565bmbj036u7kkiog4f@4ax.com>,
    bariloche@bariloche.com says...
    > On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:38:25 GMT, dhaynie@jersey.net (Dave Haynie)
    > wrote:
    > >Storing them properly (moderately cool, moderately
    > >humid, stored on end, not flat) will prolog their life some, but they
    > >won't last indefinitely. Or even remotely as long as properly stored
    > >DVDs.
    >
    > Not that people should forget that discs also have a lifetime. But
    > then, by cloning, you can perpetuate the species.
    >

    And for personal footage, that can't be replicated,
    consider using up any remaining space on the DVD with
    PAR2 files (using QuickPar). That way, when the built-
    in error correction can't keep up with the scratches
    anymore, you have a window of opportunity to use the
    recovery data to verify/fix-up the files prior to
    cloning. As long as the number of damaged data blocks
    on the disc are less then the number of recovery blocks
    that you added to the disc, you'll probably fix all of
    the damaged data blocks.

    Note: This requires that your VIDEO_TS folder gets
    written to disc prior to burning, and that your DVD
    writing software allows you to place extra data on the
    disc. Not really an option for set-top DVD recorders,
    unless you're re-authoring to put different menus on the
    disc.
  17. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > It's true that most people can't tell the difference, and largely it's
    an
    > issue of education. Once someone knows what MP3 does to the audio it's
    > really easy to spot later on (and it's annoying if you're a producer
    like
    > me. ;-) ).

    Can you say flange? <g>

    > It also has to do with the source material being used. If you encode a
    "rock
    > band", there's very little difference in terms of dynamic range,
    frequency
    > response, or sound staging. But play any sort of trance/electronica
    that has
    > a a very wide audio spectrum, lots of dynamic range, and seriously
    takes
    > advantage of the stereo field, it makes a HUGE difference.

    The test, if I remember correctly, was a tune with a huge dynamic range,
    maybe classical but I'm not sure.

    > So just because no one "could tell a difference" doesn't mean that
    it's true
    > across the board. It was, for THAT MATERIAL YOU USED.

    This was more of an encoder/bit rate test. At the time, some people
    swore by Xing, others mp3enc31, some APS. Others swore they could tell
    the difference between a 160 and a 192. And these were people who were
    quite experienced with the emerging mp3 technology and considered
    themselves critical listeners. It was quite enlightening for all.
    Sometimes it's not what you hear, but what you _don't_ hear.

    I just threw the re-encode X 10 to deflate some egos.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Leonid Makarovsky" <venom@cs.bu.edu> wrote in message
    news:c4l0lk$qi3$3@news3.bu.edu...
    > The claim that LiteOn DVD recorder records without a quality loss is
    simply
    > untrue. I guarantee you that the footage that has a lots of motions will
    show
    > some small square pixels not found on original.

    Oh, so you have one? And how much is your guarantee worth?

    > I capture with my Philips based
    > TV Tuner card into Huffyuv full resolution and then post compress it with
    > highest settings of TMPGEnc. I guarantee you that this way is much better
    than
    > any stand alone DVD recorder.

    You *might* be able to get better results with your TV tuner card. Tmpgenc
    definitely has an advantage, but it depends on what your tuner card is
    putting out and it's a lot more work. My Pinnacle Pro TV tuner card doesn't
    produce any better results than the LiteOn, and that's using HuffYUV and
    Tmpgenc 2 pass vbr encoding.

    Plus I was directly addressing your regarding "waste of time" issue.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    FLY135 <FLY_135(@hot not not)notmail.com> wrote:
    : You *might* be able to get better results with your TV tuner card. Tmpgenc
    : definitely has an advantage, but it depends on what your tuner card is
    : putting out and it's a lot more work. My Pinnacle Pro TV tuner card doesn't
    : produce any better results than the LiteOn, and that's using HuffYUV and
    : Tmpgenc 2 pass vbr encoding.

    If you have Pinnacle PCTV, they are based on Conexant chips (the older models),
    so they won't produce better results than Philips based cards. Although later
    models now putting the Philips chip. And yeah, I agree with *a lot more work*,
    but at the same time I have more control regarding mastering audio.

    --Leonid
  20. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    FLY135 <FLY_135(@hot not not)notmail.com> wrote:
    : Oh, so you have one? And how much is your guarantee worth?

    Someone gave me bunch of DVDs he recorded on high end DVD recorder from
    Hi8 or betamax. These were hockey games. The quality was indeed good, but if
    one pays close attention he/she can see some blockiness during fast motion.
    And yeah, he chose the highest bit rate possible. I don't have his source so
    I can't compare back to back. I'd like to though. Later on I recorded a game
    from just a VHS with this TV Tuner card and sent it off to him. He was really
    impressed with my work.

    Also what do you think of Pinnacle DC1000 or DC3000, whatever is worth $1200?
    My friend has it. He lives in Germany. He made a few DVD-Rs from Laser Discs
    and from VHS. I couldn't compare the LD source material, but I did have oirig
    VHS and I could clearly see degradation. And as a matter of fact I could do way
    better quality with FlyVideo 3000FM tuner card than he did with his Pinnacle.
    Maybe he didn't use a bit rate of 8000kbs like I do, but my snapshot of the
    same frame looked sharper.

    --Leonid
  21. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Toshi1873 <toshi1873@nowhere.com> wrote:
    :> So would you recommend doing 640x480 rather than 704x480?
    :>

    : Test your capture card, find some good clean footage and
    : capture at 720x, 704x, 352x, 360x, 640x and see which
    : comes in the cleanest. Or google around and try to find

    Well, all I know is my capture card definitely does *NOT* support 720x...
    resolution. When I used it, it was actually doing 704x... resolution and
    during playback it stretched the image to 720x... thus violating aspect
    ration. 704x... resolution fit perfectly. I didn't try 640x... resolution
    though. I believe you'd recommend to capture in 640x... and then during
    mpeg 2 creation resize it to 704x..., right?

    --Leonid

    PS. There's some serious stuff here now. This thread doesn't seem to be april
    fools anymore. Probably gotta change the topic.
  22. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Looks like your question did not get answered:
    If you want to copy only you can just buy a standalone DVD Recorder. If you
    want to do any editing or make nice menus, etc., buy a burner for your PC
    and some easy to use editing/authoring software such as Ulead. You should be
    able to copy from VHS to the PC by going through the Digital Camacorder in
    passthrough. I do this all the time and can't tell any difference between
    the original VHS and the new DVD. Maybe my eyes arn't as discreminating as
    some though.
    One reason for copying VHS to DVD is to preserve. DVD has a much longer life
    that VHS. Something like 100 years vs. 7 years if I'm not mistaken. I also
    enjoy being able to set up chapters/menu buttons and go directly to a seen.

    "Margaret Willmer" <margaret@gigglingwillmer.org.uk> wrote in message
    news:c4jdq0$7le$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
    > Interesting discussion. I am beginning to think about converting some of
    my
    > most precious VHS tapes. As a start should I copy them to MiniDV maybe
    via
    > a bit of editing on the PC and keep a copy on DV tape? I don't have a DVD
    > writer yet. That's another consideration - do I buy a burner for the PC
    or
    > an under TV recorder? All these things to addle the brain!!
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    > Margaret
    >
    > Remove giggling if replying by email
    > "Richard Ragon" <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote in message
    > news:QP7bc.12134809$Id.2029878@news.easynews.com...
    > > Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
    > > > Going from VHS to DVD is a waste of time! I just recently realized it.
    > Just like many of you,
    > > > I'd spend hours and days trying to convert some VHS footage to DVD.
    But
    > the end result
    > > > was always worse than original, no matter what you'd do. The idea is
    to
    > have the end result
    > > > identical to source. It will never happen. Why? Just think about it:
    > first you digitize the video.
    > > > When you digitize the video, there's a certain degree of degradation.
    > Then whatever codec
    > > > you use Huffyuv or DV would compress your footage. And then you
    further
    > compress it
    > > > to DVD compliant MPEG 2 file. Now the most interesting thing is when
    you
    > have your DVD
    > > > ready. You play your DVD and you convert the digital signal *BACK* to
    > analog to display
    > > > on TV. So basically what you have is
    > Analog->Digital->Compression->Compression->Analog.
    > > > And this is just as some claim to preserve a footage 'cause VHS
    > deteriorates. But VHS only
    > > > deteriorates when you use it. When you just keep them in cool storage,
    > nothing will happen
    > > > to them. So I found a good solution. Just copy VHS to another VHS or
    > S-VHS. You have the
    > > > master copy which you store in your storage. To playback just use the
    > 1st generation copy. Yes
    > > > there's a quality loss, but it is a tiny one. You don't go
    > analog->digital->analog. You just go
    > > > analog->analog. The results are much better. I don't know about you,
    but
    > I'm off DVDR market.
    > > >
    > > > --Leonid
    > >
    > > All good points Leonid,
    > >
    > > There's an old saying, "Garbage in, Garbage out". However, there's some
    > > trouble with your theories.
    > >
    > > 1) Yes you digitize it, but you'll get an exact copy of how it plays
    > > right this minute. And yes that will be about as good the original
    > > copy.. However, I personally have a Canopus-300 which actually cleans up
    > > some of the shortcomings of the video signal, plus once you digitize
    > > your footage, and can run a few filters and a little tweaking on color
    > > corrections, and you can actually end up with a better copy of that
    > > footage. I capture with a very high data rate (not DV) in a near
    > > uncompressed format. The losses from this are indistinguishable to the
    > > human eye, if any.
    > >
    > > 2) I don't know if you've been to the local Best Buy lately, but it's
    > > getting more and more difficult to find a single VHS tape player these
    > > days.. At the current rate the VHS player will go the rate of the
    > > turntable by next year. So while yes, you might have that perfect copy
    > > of the Master tape, you'll not find a way to every play it again in a
    > > few short years.
    > >
    > > 3) In another theory, A final step of outputting to an analog TV will
    > > also be a thing of the past, as we look forward to HDTV. So your theory
    > > here is also a moot point too.
    > >
    > > But, yes.. True that the original would have been much better off going
    > > straight to digital DV, but I think the whole point is not to try to fix
    > > what was done in some kind of remaster, but more like to create
    > > something that will allow you be able to play it at all years down the
    > line.
    > >
    > > -Richard
    > >
    >
    >
  23. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On 3 Apr 2004 00:31:49 GMT, Leonid Makarovsky <venom@cs.bu.edu> wrote:

    > But if you compress the lossless Huffyuv codec 10 times, how can
    >you not lose the information?

    What part of "lossless" isn't getting through? Try it with ZIP
    sometime... no loss is no loss is no loss, even if you do it 1000
    times.

    Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting
    dhaynie@jersey.net| Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004!
    "Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com
  24. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
    > Going from VHS to DVD is a waste of time! I just recently realized
    > it.

    Rewinding VHS tape is a waste of MY time, and I always knew that :)

    --
    www.odysea.ca
  25. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > Funny thing was, MPEG Layer 3 was originally defined to offer
    > transparent audio quality at ISDN rates (64Kb/s mono, 128kb/s stereo),
    > for use in broadcasting. It did that job better than anything that
    > came before, no one complained. We had to get the geeks involved for
    > that.

    There's some in every crowd.

    > >Almost none of the "golden ear" crowd participated, not surprisingly.
    >
    > Some of those folks have issues. Some aren't really golden ears, but
    > got that kind of reputation, and hey, if you're not a golden ears guy
    > yourself, how do you know they're not wrong? Especially in the
    > "Audiophile" world, where most of the audio quality stuff is a little
    > science mized with heapin' helpin's of mythology, bad science, snake
    > oil salesmen, and "emperor's new clothes" purchase decisions. They
    > don't like too much actual reality, like objective blind tests, to be
    > introduced into that melee.

    That's what this test provided, a totally blind comparison. It's also
    why a lot of the "golden ears" crowd didn't participate.

    > You probably have a few legit guys, too, who (like me, for example),
    > cannot hear as well as we could, say, back in our 20's. I still think
    > my ears work very well, I hear things other folks don't, but I'm not
    > making a living on 'em. And I'm honestly not sure I could pull 320's
    > from 128's. Maybe on my best sound system, on music I know very well.

    I did several blind A/B tests on music that I knew, on my system, and I
    couldn't. But then again, I'm an over 40 old fart so who knows what a 20
    year old could hear. It was still astounding that only one guy could
    tell the difference. And there was speculation at the time that he used
    Sound Forge or CEP to do a frequency analysis to see what the high
    frequency roll off was to identify the encoder. I think the Xing
    encoders rolled off at 15 mHz while the FhG encoders were a little
    higher than that. But there was no doubt, he could differentiate between
    a 160 and a 320, regardless of the encoder.

    > But in general? Now, if you're talkin' WMAs, that's another story --
    > just listen for the pre-echos. That stuff gives you fatigue; lots of
    > people will pick those out easily.

    I've been surprised at the quality of WMV's, really surprised. I've
    never even listened to WMA's before, didn't seem to offer any
    advantages.

    > >I've got a lot of irreplaceable family footage on 8mm and VHS tape
    that
    > >I'm just getting ready to convert. Am I expecting perfection? Not at
    > >all. But I'll feel a hell of a lot better, and will have a chance of
    > >actually viewing the footage, in 10 years when I've got them archived
    on
    > >DVD rather than a vhs tape.
    >
    > Another thing to consider -- are you doing any editing? If you're
    > planning to edit your home video, you'll find it easy to bring
    > first-generation video into digital, edit there, and produce a DVD
    > that's dramatically better than any basic roll-edit to VHS, in both

    The plan is to get a VCR with a TBC, capture the output with my AIW card
    to uncompressed AVI, edit with PP then encode to DVD format. Something
    tells me it won't be that easy. <g>
  26. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Leonid Makarovsky" <venom@cs.bu.edu> wrote in message
    news:c4npl6$rrj$1@news3.bu.edu...
    > FLY135 <FLY_135(@hot not not)notmail.com> wrote:
    > : Oh, so you have one? And how much is your guarantee worth?
    >
    > Someone gave me bunch of DVDs he recorded on high end DVD recorder from
    > Hi8 or betamax. These were hockey games. The quality was indeed good, but
    if
    > one pays close attention he/she can see some blockiness during fast
    motion.

    Well my original answer was tailored to your first post. I'm not trying to
    say that the LiteOn gives the highest possible quality. I've only used it
    so far to record TV shows and am very impressed with the lack of artifacts.
    I haven't even used the highest quality 1 hour mode. The two hour mode is
    very clean. Even the 4 hour mode is relatively clean although the softening
    of the image through filtering is very apparent. If you apply a critical
    eye I'm sure that better results could be achieved with a good capture card
    and Tmpgenc. But I seriously doubt that someone who simply wants to archive
    VHS tapes without any fuss would be disappointed.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Dave Haynie <dhaynie@jersey.net> wrote:
    :> But if you compress the lossless Huffyuv codec 10 times, how can
    :>you not lose the information?

    : What part of "lossless" isn't getting through? Try it with ZIP
    : sometime... no loss is no loss is no loss, even if you do it 1000
    : times.

    I'm not talking about the loss of information when you capture in Huffyuv.
    What I'm saying is a reallife example. I captured the VHS 2 hours long in
    Huffyuv yesterday. My file was 50GB. I'm going to be splitting it into 2 DVD-Rs
    to achieve the highest quality. So my resulting MPEG-2 will be 8GB. That's
    6 times as little as original. And you're saying comparing to original HUFFYUV
    AVI file, MPEG-2 will be without information loss? I don't think so.

    --Leonid
  28. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Thank you for that reply. I could still do the editing on a PC and make it
    out to DV tape and the use a standalone recorder I suppose but with no menus
    or can you put menus of some sort on? But which recorder?!! :-)

    Margaret

    Remove giggling if replying by email
    "Me" <me@me.com> wrote in message news:1081080705.999396@sj-nntpcache-5...
    > Looks like your question did not get answered:
    > If you want to copy only you can just buy a standalone DVD Recorder. If
    you
    > want to do any editing or make nice menus, etc., buy a burner for your PC
    > and some easy to use editing/authoring software such as Ulead. You should
    be
    > able to copy from VHS to the PC by going through the Digital Camacorder in
    > passthrough. I do this all the time and can't tell any difference between
    > the original VHS and the new DVD. Maybe my eyes arn't as discreminating as
    > some though.
    > One reason for copying VHS to DVD is to preserve. DVD has a much longer
    life
    > that VHS. Something like 100 years vs. 7 years if I'm not mistaken. I also
    > enjoy being able to set up chapters/menu buttons and go directly to a
    seen.
    >
    > "Margaret Willmer" <margaret@gigglingwillmer.org.uk> wrote in message
    > news:c4jdq0$7le$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
    > > Interesting discussion. I am beginning to think about converting some
    of
    > my
    > > most precious VHS tapes. As a start should I copy them to MiniDV maybe
    > via
    > > a bit of editing on the PC and keep a copy on DV tape? I don't have a
    DVD
    > > writer yet. That's another consideration - do I buy a burner for the PC
    > or
    > > an under TV recorder? All these things to addle the brain!!
    > >
    > > Cheers
    > >
    > > Margaret
    > >
    > > Remove giggling if replying by email
    > > "Richard Ragon" <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote in message
    > > news:QP7bc.12134809$Id.2029878@news.easynews.com...
    > > > Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
    > > > > Going from VHS to DVD is a waste of time! I just recently realized
    it.
    > > Just like many of you,
    > > > > I'd spend hours and days trying to convert some VHS footage to DVD.
    > But
    > > the end result
    > > > > was always worse than original, no matter what you'd do. The idea is
    > to
    > > have the end result
    > > > > identical to source. It will never happen. Why? Just think about it:
    > > first you digitize the video.
    > > > > When you digitize the video, there's a certain degree of
    degradation.
    > > Then whatever codec
    > > > > you use Huffyuv or DV would compress your footage. And then you
    > further
    > > compress it
    > > > > to DVD compliant MPEG 2 file. Now the most interesting thing is when
    > you
    > > have your DVD
    > > > > ready. You play your DVD and you convert the digital signal *BACK*
    to
    > > analog to display
    > > > > on TV. So basically what you have is
    > > Analog->Digital->Compression->Compression->Analog.
    > > > > And this is just as some claim to preserve a footage 'cause VHS
    > > deteriorates. But VHS only
    > > > > deteriorates when you use it. When you just keep them in cool
    storage,
    > > nothing will happen
    > > > > to them. So I found a good solution. Just copy VHS to another VHS or
    > > S-VHS. You have the
    > > > > master copy which you store in your storage. To playback just use
    the
    > > 1st generation copy. Yes
    > > > > there's a quality loss, but it is a tiny one. You don't go
    > > analog->digital->analog. You just go
    > > > > analog->analog. The results are much better. I don't know about you,
    > but
    > > I'm off DVDR market.
    > > > >
    > > > > --Leonid
    > > >
    > > > All good points Leonid,
    > > >
    > > > There's an old saying, "Garbage in, Garbage out". However, there's
    some
    > > > trouble with your theories.
    > > >
    > > > 1) Yes you digitize it, but you'll get an exact copy of how it plays
    > > > right this minute. And yes that will be about as good the original
    > > > copy.. However, I personally have a Canopus-300 which actually cleans
    up
    > > > some of the shortcomings of the video signal, plus once you digitize
    > > > your footage, and can run a few filters and a little tweaking on color
    > > > corrections, and you can actually end up with a better copy of that
    > > > footage. I capture with a very high data rate (not DV) in a near
    > > > uncompressed format. The losses from this are indistinguishable to
    the
    > > > human eye, if any.
    > > >
    > > > 2) I don't know if you've been to the local Best Buy lately, but it's
    > > > getting more and more difficult to find a single VHS tape player these
    > > > days.. At the current rate the VHS player will go the rate of the
    > > > turntable by next year. So while yes, you might have that perfect
    copy
    > > > of the Master tape, you'll not find a way to every play it again in a
    > > > few short years.
    > > >
    > > > 3) In another theory, A final step of outputting to an analog TV will
    > > > also be a thing of the past, as we look forward to HDTV. So your
    theory
    > > > here is also a moot point too.
    > > >
    > > > But, yes.. True that the original would have been much better off
    going
    > > > straight to digital DV, but I think the whole point is not to try to
    fix
    > > > what was done in some kind of remaster, but more like to create
    > > > something that will allow you be able to play it at all years down the
    > > line.
    > > >
    > > > -Richard
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  29. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <1081080705.999396@sj-nntpcache-5>, me@me.com
    says...
    > Looks like your question did not get answered:
    > If you want to copy only you can just buy a standalone DVD Recorder. If you
    > want to do any editing or make nice menus, etc., buy a burner for your PC
    > and some easy to use editing/authoring software such as Ulead. You should be
    > able to copy from VHS to the PC by going through the Digital Camacorder in
    > passthrough. I do this all the time and can't tell any difference between
    > the original VHS and the new DVD. Maybe my eyes arn't as discreminating as
    > some though.

    Get some good test footage... close up pictures of
    waves, ripples in the water. For example, shoot some
    footage of ducks swimming in a large pond with moderate
    ripples reflecting the blue sky. The brownian(?) motion
    of the ripples will give an MPEG2 encoder fits.
    Switching to a higher motion search precision and/or
    giving it a higher bitrate to work with can minimize the
    problems.

    Pictures of flames might also be good test?

    Once you learn to spot the scenes that will likely cause
    problems, you'll start picking up on the MPEG2 flaws in
    other situations.

    > One reason for copying VHS to DVD is to preserve. DVD has a much longer life
    > that VHS. Something like 100 years vs. 7 years if I'm not mistaken. I also
    > enjoy being able to set up chapters/menu buttons and go directly to a seen.
    >

    As long as you copy the DVD to new media prior to it
    failing. (And it will fail after as short as a few
    years, depending on environment / handling / media
    quality / burn quality.) Once the DVD has unrecoverable
    errors, you're pretty much sunk unless another DVD
    reader is less sensitive to the scratches or weak dyes.

    (Which is why I recommended adding PAR2 data earlier, to
    give you a window of recoverability between when the
    disc starts giving unrecoverable errors and when you can
    no longer recover the data at all.)
  30. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 08:13:01 -0400, "Me" <me@me.com> wrote:

    >You should be
    >able to copy from VHS to the PC by going through the Digital Camacorder in
    >passthrough. I do this all the time and can't tell any difference between
    >the original VHS and the new DVD.

    You are luckier. I can tell the difference :(

    >One reason for copying VHS to DVD is to preserve. DVD has a much longer life
    >that VHS. Something like 100 years vs. 7 years if I'm not mistaken.

    I would not rely on that at all. No DVD disc has resisted for 100
    years to prove it. But you can clone a DVD till eternity, with no loss
    -quite the contrary of any analog thing.
  31. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    I don't know about the stanalone resorders. I just like to jazz up home
    videos of the kids and I do it all on PC. Strated by copying all of my VHS-C
    to DVD and then got a digital camcorder. I suspect (but don't know) that you
    will spend a lot more money to do this with a standalone DVD recorder. The
    cheapest I've seen them is $300. If your video card has S-Video output you
    might be able to burn directly from PC. Otherwise they usually have 1394
    input so you can burn from DV. I don't know how you would do menus in that
    case but there might be a way. Maybe someone on the forum has done this and
    can comment.
    Good DVD recorders for PCs are pretty cheap at under $150. That, a 1394
    card, and a VHS player serve me fine. As Toshi pointed out there are times
    you can see a degradation of quality. I haven't noticed any but I should
    have clarified that I was speaking of typical home movie use.

    "Margaret Willmer" <margaret@gigglingwillmer.org.uk> wrote in message
    news:c4p9jo$68q$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
    > Thank you for that reply. I could still do the editing on a PC and make
    it
    > out to DV tape and the use a standalone recorder I suppose but with no
    menus
    > or can you put menus of some sort on? But which recorder?!! :-)
    >
    > Margaret
    >
    > Remove giggling if replying by email
    > "Me" <me@me.com> wrote in message news:1081080705.999396@sj-nntpcache-5...
    > > Looks like your question did not get answered:
    > > If you want to copy only you can just buy a standalone DVD Recorder. If
    > you
    > > want to do any editing or make nice menus, etc., buy a burner for your
    PC
    > > and some easy to use editing/authoring software such as Ulead. You
    should
    > be
    > > able to copy from VHS to the PC by going through the Digital Camacorder
    in
    > > passthrough. I do this all the time and can't tell any difference
    between
    > > the original VHS and the new DVD. Maybe my eyes arn't as discreminating
    as
    > > some though.
    > > One reason for copying VHS to DVD is to preserve. DVD has a much longer
    > life
    > > that VHS. Something like 100 years vs. 7 years if I'm not mistaken. I
    also
    > > enjoy being able to set up chapters/menu buttons and go directly to a
    > seen.
    > >
    > > "Margaret Willmer" <margaret@gigglingwillmer.org.uk> wrote in message
    > > news:c4jdq0$7le$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
    > > > Interesting discussion. I am beginning to think about converting some
    > of
    > > my
    > > > most precious VHS tapes. As a start should I copy them to MiniDV
    maybe
    > > via
    > > > a bit of editing on the PC and keep a copy on DV tape? I don't have a
    > DVD
    > > > writer yet. That's another consideration - do I buy a burner for the
    PC
    > > or
    > > > an under TV recorder? All these things to addle the brain!!
    > > >
    > > > Cheers
    > > >
    > > > Margaret
    > > >
    > > > Remove giggling if replying by email
    > > > "Richard Ragon" <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:QP7bc.12134809$Id.2029878@news.easynews.com...
    > > > > Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
    > > > > > Going from VHS to DVD is a waste of time! I just recently realized
    > it.
    > > > Just like many of you,
    > > > > > I'd spend hours and days trying to convert some VHS footage to
    DVD.
    > > But
    > > > the end result
    > > > > > was always worse than original, no matter what you'd do. The idea
    is
    > > to
    > > > have the end result
    > > > > > identical to source. It will never happen. Why? Just think about
    it:
    > > > first you digitize the video.
    > > > > > When you digitize the video, there's a certain degree of
    > degradation.
    > > > Then whatever codec
    > > > > > you use Huffyuv or DV would compress your footage. And then you
    > > further
    > > > compress it
    > > > > > to DVD compliant MPEG 2 file. Now the most interesting thing is
    when
    > > you
    > > > have your DVD
    > > > > > ready. You play your DVD and you convert the digital signal *BACK*
    > to
    > > > analog to display
    > > > > > on TV. So basically what you have is
    > > > Analog->Digital->Compression->Compression->Analog.
    > > > > > And this is just as some claim to preserve a footage 'cause VHS
    > > > deteriorates. But VHS only
    > > > > > deteriorates when you use it. When you just keep them in cool
    > storage,
    > > > nothing will happen
    > > > > > to them. So I found a good solution. Just copy VHS to another VHS
    or
    > > > S-VHS. You have the
    > > > > > master copy which you store in your storage. To playback just use
    > the
    > > > 1st generation copy. Yes
    > > > > > there's a quality loss, but it is a tiny one. You don't go
    > > > analog->digital->analog. You just go
    > > > > > analog->analog. The results are much better. I don't know about
    you,
    > > but
    > > > I'm off DVDR market.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > --Leonid
    > > > >
    > > > > All good points Leonid,
    > > > >
    > > > > There's an old saying, "Garbage in, Garbage out". However, there's
    > some
    > > > > trouble with your theories.
    > > > >
    > > > > 1) Yes you digitize it, but you'll get an exact copy of how it plays
    > > > > right this minute. And yes that will be about as good the original
    > > > > copy.. However, I personally have a Canopus-300 which actually
    cleans
    > up
    > > > > some of the shortcomings of the video signal, plus once you digitize
    > > > > your footage, and can run a few filters and a little tweaking on
    color
    > > > > corrections, and you can actually end up with a better copy of that
    > > > > footage. I capture with a very high data rate (not DV) in a near
    > > > > uncompressed format. The losses from this are indistinguishable to
    > the
    > > > > human eye, if any.
    > > > >
    > > > > 2) I don't know if you've been to the local Best Buy lately, but
    it's
    > > > > getting more and more difficult to find a single VHS tape player
    these
    > > > > days.. At the current rate the VHS player will go the rate of the
    > > > > turntable by next year. So while yes, you might have that perfect
    > copy
    > > > > of the Master tape, you'll not find a way to every play it again in
    a
    > > > > few short years.
    > > > >
    > > > > 3) In another theory, A final step of outputting to an analog TV
    will
    > > > > also be a thing of the past, as we look forward to HDTV. So your
    > theory
    > > > > here is also a moot point too.
    > > > >
    > > > > But, yes.. True that the original would have been much better off
    > going
    > > > > straight to digital DV, but I think the whole point is not to try to
    > fix
    > > > > what was done in some kind of remaster, but more like to create
    > > > > something that will allow you be able to play it at all years down
    the
    > > > line.
    > > > >
    > > > > -Richard
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  32. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Toshi,

    Good points but you are refering to image degradation that occurs when
    rendering to mpeg. My point was that I don't see any image degradation when
    capturing, via digicam passthrough, VHS to the PC. Video is store as
    uncompressed AVI and I have not seen any loss of quality. I'm sure there is,
    and in a production environment it may be unacceptable, but for most home
    users I would think it is fine.

    "Toshi1873" <toshi1873@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1adb1aaf256157d4989826@news-50.giganews.com...
    > In article <1081080705.999396@sj-nntpcache-5>, me@me.com
    > says...
    > > Looks like your question did not get answered:
    > > If you want to copy only you can just buy a standalone DVD Recorder. If
    you
    > > want to do any editing or make nice menus, etc., buy a burner for your
    PC
    > > and some easy to use editing/authoring software such as Ulead. You
    should be
    > > able to copy from VHS to the PC by going through the Digital Camacorder
    in
    > > passthrough. I do this all the time and can't tell any difference
    between
    > > the original VHS and the new DVD. Maybe my eyes arn't as discreminating
    as
    > > some though.
    >
    > Get some good test footage... close up pictures of
    > waves, ripples in the water. For example, shoot some
    > footage of ducks swimming in a large pond with moderate
    > ripples reflecting the blue sky. The brownian(?) motion
    > of the ripples will give an MPEG2 encoder fits.
    > Switching to a higher motion search precision and/or
    > giving it a higher bitrate to work with can minimize the
    > problems.
    >
    > Pictures of flames might also be good test?
    >
    > Once you learn to spot the scenes that will likely cause
    > problems, you'll start picking up on the MPEG2 flaws in
    > other situations.
    >
    > > One reason for copying VHS to DVD is to preserve. DVD has a much longer
    life
    > > that VHS. Something like 100 years vs. 7 years if I'm not mistaken. I
    also
    > > enjoy being able to set up chapters/menu buttons and go directly to a
    seen.
    > >
    >
    > As long as you copy the DVD to new media prior to it
    > failing. (And it will fail after as short as a few
    > years, depending on environment / handling / media
    > quality / burn quality.) Once the DVD has unrecoverable
    > errors, you're pretty much sunk unless another DVD
    > reader is less sensitive to the scratches or weak dyes.
    >
    > (Which is why I recommended adding PAR2 data earlier, to
    > give you a window of recoverability between when the
    > disc starts giving unrecoverable errors and when you can
    > no longer recover the data at all.)
  33. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Not to mention that there will have been numeous subsequent standards and
    DVD players will be in museums :-).
    "Bariloche" <bariloche@bariloche.com> wrote in message
    news:e20270960lj1e8q7pq2ekhlue2c4k7ld0u@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 08:13:01 -0400, "Me" <me@me.com> wrote:
    >
    > >You should be
    > >able to copy from VHS to the PC by going through the Digital Camacorder
    in
    > >passthrough. I do this all the time and can't tell any difference between
    > >the original VHS and the new DVD.
    >
    > You are luckier. I can tell the difference :(
    >
    > >One reason for copying VHS to DVD is to preserve. DVD has a much longer
    life
    > >that VHS. Something like 100 years vs. 7 years if I'm not mistaken.
    >
    > I would not rely on that at all. No DVD disc has resisted for 100
    > years to prove it. But you can clone a DVD till eternity, with no loss
    > -quite the contrary of any analog thing.
  34. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    The problem I had with using the drive in the PC is the distance
    involved from the S-VHS player in the entertainment center. With a
    stand-alone (Pioneer DVR 310) permanently hooked up in the
    entertainment center, it is a simple matter to record from VHS to DVD.

    Dick

    On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 11:41:29 -0400, "Me" <me@me.com> wrote:


    >Good DVD recorders for PCs are pretty cheap at under $150. That, a 1394
    >card, and a VHS player serve me fine. As Toshi pointed out there are times
    >you can see a degradation of quality. I haven't noticed any but I should
    >have clarified that I was speaking of typical home movie use.
  35. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 08:27:13 -0400, Toshi1873 <toshi1873@nowhere.com>
    wrote:

    >(Which is why I recommended adding PAR2 data earlier, to
    >give you a window of recoverability between when the
    >disc starts giving unrecoverable errors and when you can
    >no longer recover the data at all.)

    Which software would allow us to do that with a DVD-R?
  36. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > identical to source. It will never happen. Why? Just think about it: first you digitize the video.
    > When you digitize the video, there's a certain degree of degradation. Then whatever codec
    > you use Huffyuv or DV would compress your footage. And then you further compress it

    Works fine here.

    The thing you don't realize is that VHS is of a lower resolution
    system to begin with than DV video. So, VHS to DV conversion results in
    the retention of basically 99%+ of the original VHS quality for the most
    part. (Yes, always some compression artifacts if you really, really
    stress test a system, but in real-life, you won't see or notice
    anything.) Any system with greater bandwidth and resolution than a
    lower quality system can encode the lower quality system w/o problems,
    in general.

    That step is so sure, you can almost always get the 'same as
    original' quality video from a VHS tape in this conversion step.

    (We're not aiming for broadcast quality colors and signals here --
    just something that looks and acts identical for the home consumer, even
    a picky one.)

    ---

    The next step, DV to MPEG-2 conversion for final DVD burning is
    actually the most important step to baby. Here, the choice of an
    encoder as well as bitrate will significantly affect the output.

    At the minimum, a base 6000kbps video rate for MPEG-2 will generall
    give you semi-decent encoded DVD quality video, but realistically,
    you'll have to march the VHS source through a preprocessor to clean up
    some noise and so forth, do a two pass MPEG-2 encoding in a high quality
    encoder, then push it through.

    http://www.dvdrhelp.com/guides.php?howtoselect=4#4;10

    has lots of help on this step.

    ---

    You can get DVDs that look like VHS sources if you're careful.

    ---

    http://bealecorner.com/trv900/copy/copy.html
    provides direct DV vs SVHS vs VHS vs VCD image comparisons to let
    you see what kind of image resolution and quality you can expect from
    higher-end equipment in each category. You can generally encode a lower
    resolution format in a better format w/o any loss of quality or
    resolution, but will going the other way around. DVD discs are
    somewhere between DV and SVHS. (Thus, recording VHS to DV tapes will
    work fine.)

    ---

    Naturally, because VHS is an analog system, you'd prefer TBC & Noise
    reduction on the VHS deck you're using for output for a cleaner DVD....

    ---

    A 'simpler' way is to buy a DVD recorder deck, plug the VHS into
    that, and press record. Usually gives most users very high-quality
    copies that look great. Saves you the trouble of babysitting a PC, too.
  37. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <f2p270hjrjaqnhs129dnbarlj8sosqaihl@4ax.com>,
    bariloche@bariloche.com says...
    > On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 08:27:13 -0400, Toshi1873 <toshi1873@nowhere.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >(Which is why I recommended adding PAR2 data earlier, to
    > >give you a window of recoverability between when the
    > >disc starts giving unrecoverable errors and when you can
    > >no longer recover the data at all.)
    >
    > Which software would allow us to do that with a DVD-R?
    >

    QuickPar 0.8... don't have the address handy...
    something like http://quickpar.co.uk/

    Only caveat is that your authoring software has to
    create the VIDEO_TS folder on the hard drive, without
    writing it straight to the disc. And it needs to allow
    you to include extra files in the VIDEO_TS folder. I
    use TDA to author, ImgTools Classic to create an ISO
    file that I burn with Roxio 6.
  38. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote:
    : The thing you don't realize is that VHS is of a lower resolution
    : system to begin with than DV video. So, VHS to DV conversion results in
    : the retention of basically 99%+ of the original VHS quality for the most
    : part. (Yes, always some compression artifacts if you really, really
    : stress test a system, but in real-life, you won't see or notice
    : anything.) Any system with greater bandwidth and resolution than a

    I did notice the difference between DV and source VHS.

    : The next step, DV to MPEG-2 conversion for final DVD burning is
    : actually the most important step to baby. Here, the choice of an
    : encoder as well as bitrate will significantly affect the output.

    MPEG 2 DVD compliant is actually better than DV in some aspects. I don't
    remember, but I think it was color depth. So going to analog->DV->MPEG 2
    is not the best solution.

    : You can get DVDs that look like VHS sources if you're careful.

    For still pictures and low motions yes, but once motions are fast DVD is not
    that great 'cause that's where data rate is required the most and that's
    where there's always lack of high enough data rate.

    --Leonid
  39. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <c4tb1a$22n$1@news3.bu.edu>,
    Leonid Makarovsky <venom@cs.bu.edu> writes:
    > David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote:
    >: The thing you don't realize is that VHS is of a lower resolution
    >: system to begin with than DV video. So, VHS to DV conversion results in
    >: the retention of basically 99%+ of the original VHS quality for the most
    >: part. (Yes, always some compression artifacts if you really, really
    >: stress test a system, but in real-life, you won't see or notice
    >: anything.) Any system with greater bandwidth and resolution than a
    >
    > I did notice the difference between DV and source VHS.
    >
    I have noticed artifacts on most DV25 capture senerios, but
    the Canopus ADVC 300 seems to do better than my previous
    experience. I am NOT arguing that the Canopus ADVC is
    a panacea, or will even be satisfactory to you, but I
    am INCREDIBLY critical, and have been getting supurb
    results while using the ADVC 300 and TMPGENC for subsequent
    denoising of LDs. IMO, LDs are much more difficult to
    properly capture, because of the wider bandwidth of LD
    and the unpleasant noise characteristics.

    My previous capture setup included using a TBC, an SVHS deck
    3D comb, a D9 deck to capture the result transparently and then
    subsequently capturing that result with a DV25 converter. My
    ad-hoc guess might estimate that 1/3 of the quality difference
    between DV25 and DV50 is bridged with the Canopus converter --
    given a noisy video source. DV25 normally dies a horrible death
    with video sources that has significant HF random noise (not
    as bad as MPEG2, however.) DV50 can usually deal with random
    noise and reproduce it very well (doesn't get worse.) The
    Canopus does a good job of transparently removing most of the
    HF noise. (It also seems to help quite a bit -- but not as
    much as the TMPGENC noise reduction for LF chroma noise.)

    The Canopus does a generally better job of removing noise
    than the combo of my DPS290 TBC with noise reduction and
    the natural 3D noise reduction of the SVHS deck, yet has
    less artifacts than the SVHS deck 3D comb alone.

    >
    >: The next step, DV to MPEG-2 conversion for final DVD burning is
    >: actually the most important step to baby. Here, the choice of an
    >: encoder as well as bitrate will significantly affect the output.
    >
    > MPEG 2 DVD compliant is actually better than DV in some aspects. I don't
    > remember, but I think it was color depth. So going to analog->DV->MPEG 2
    > is not the best solution.
    >
    Yes -- the MPEG scheme for DVD can provide 10bits of certain kinds
    of gray scale. The saving grace is that most consumer video sources
    (VHS, SVHS and LD) don't seem to be significantly degraded by the
    Canopus DV25 conversion. Even though there are likely more similarities
    between various DV25 codecs than MPEG2 codecs, there is still alot
    of opportunity for making a DV25 codec work better than historically
    expected. Packing detail into the available payload capability isn't
    something that is easy to do in a single pass.

    >
    >: You can get DVDs that look like VHS sources if you're careful.
    >
    > For still pictures and low motions yes, but once motions are fast DVD is not
    > that great 'cause that's where data rate is required the most and that's
    > where there's always lack of high enough data rate.
    >
    With good noise reduction and VERY VERY careful amounts of evil HF
    coring, the good MPEG encoders can do pretty good at 8Mbps or greater. I
    have been running tests, and it seems like my results are damned
    good (not perfect) when running at 8Mbps - 9.2Mbps.

    I can VERY VERY positively and accurately claim that (for example)
    the Bananarama Venus video looks MUCH MUCH better on my resultant
    MPEG2 file than direct from the laserdisk. The video has much
    less noise (esp chroma), it is very slightly corrected for sharpness
    and horizontal filtering (due partially to combing and potential
    standards conversion), and has no more smear than a normal good
    quality consumer 3D comb (without seperate noise reduction passes.)

    (The Venus video has lots of near-full-field red scenes, and it
    looks attrocious on raw LD -- even with some conventional noise
    reduction. After the various processing steps, it looks close
    to analog BetaSP chroma noise quality (good, but not 100% like a DV50
    recording). It ACTUALLY doesn't look like I sourced it from an
    LD!!!

    John
  40. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 20:29:16 -0400, Toshi1873 <toshi1873@nowhere.com>
    wrote:

    >QuickPar 0.8... don't have the address handy...
    >something like http://quickpar.co.uk/
    >
    >Only caveat is that your authoring software has to
    >create the VIDEO_TS folder on the hard drive, without
    >writing it straight to the disc. And it needs to allow
    >you to include extra files in the VIDEO_TS folder. I
    >use TDA to author, ImgTools Classic to create an ISO
    >file that I burn with Roxio 6.

    I have finally understood what's involved. Thank you very much, this
    is very valuable information.
  41. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On 6 Apr 2004 04:17:46 GMT, Leonid Makarovsky <venom@cs.bu.edu> wrote:

    >going to analog->DV->MPEG 2 is not the best solution.

    Certainly. DV introduces degradation which can be avoided by capturing
    with Huffyuv or uncompressed.
  42. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    http://www.simacorp.com/products/item.ep.html?id=477

    Hm, wonder if this'll help?
    (their sima color corrector was the bomb in the vhs to vhs days)

    GoDVD! Model CT-2

    Digital Video Duplicator with 4 Signal Enhancement Modes

    Adjust the output to your needs and make perfect copies of your videos.

    The CT-2 is now available!!

    Sima's GoDVD! makes copying between VHS and DVD formats a snap. This
    single unit will copy DVD to VHS, VHS to DVD and DVD to DVD. Both NTSC
    and PAL conversions are included for videos recorded or viewed overseas.
    The GoDVD! digitizes the video signal to reduce sync "noise" and
    features 4 output settings to improve image quality.
    Features

    * Easy connection to any DVD recorder
    * Stabilizes video signals for crisp copies
    * Digital technology reduces noise in video sync
    * S-VHS, VHS-C, VHS, 8mm and DVD compatible
    * 4 output signal enhancement modes- normal, enhanced, darker and
    black/white
    * Supports NTSC and PAL formats
    * Makes perfect copies of any video automatically.
  43. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <c4t0j6$hjo$1@news.service.uci.edu>, David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote:
    >> identical to source. It will never happen. Why? Just think about it: first
    > you digitize the video.
    >> When you digitize the video, there's a certain degree of degradation. Then
    > whatever codec
    >> you use Huffyuv or DV would compress your footage. And then you further
    > compress it
    >
    >Works fine here.
    >
    > The thing you don't realize is that VHS is of a lower resolution
    >system to begin with than DV video. So, VHS to DV conversion results in
    >the retention of basically 99%+ of the original VHS quality for the most
    >part. (Yes, always some compression artifacts if you really, really
    >stress test a system, but in real-life, you won't see or notice
    >anything.) Any system with greater bandwidth and resolution than a
    >lower quality system can encode the lower quality system w/o problems,
    >in general.
    But will also encode all the noise involved in VHS

    >
    > That step is so sure, you can almost always get the 'same as
    >original' quality video from a VHS tape in this conversion step.
    >
    > (We're not aiming for broadcast quality colors and signals here --
    >just something that looks and acts identical for the home consumer, even
    >a picky one.)
    >
    > ---
    >
    > The next step, DV to MPEG-2 conversion for final DVD burning is
    >actually the most important step to baby. Here, the choice of an
    >encoder as well as bitrate will significantly affect the output.
    >
    > At the minimum, a base 6000kbps video rate for MPEG-2 will generall
    >give you semi-decent encoded DVD quality video, but realistically,
    >you'll have to march the VHS source through a preprocessor to clean up
    >some noise and so forth, do a two pass MPEG-2 encoding in a high quality
    >encoder, then push it through.
    >
    >http://www.dvdrhelp.com/guides.php?howtoselect=4#4;10
    >
    >has lots of help on this step.
    >
    > ---
    >
    > You can get DVDs that look like VHS sources if you're careful.
    >
    > ---
    >
    > http://bealecorner.com/trv900/copy/copy.html
    > provides direct DV vs SVHS vs VHS vs VCD image comparisons to let
    >you see what kind of image resolution and quality you can expect from
    >higher-end equipment in each category. You can generally encode a lower
    >resolution format in a better format w/o any loss of quality or
    >resolution, but will going the other way around. DVD discs are
    >somewhere between DV and SVHS. (Thus, recording VHS to DV tapes will
    >work fine.)
    >
    > ---
    >
    > Naturally, because VHS is an analog system, you'd prefer TBC & Noise
    >reduction on the VHS deck you're using for output for a cleaner DVD....
    >
    > ---
    >
    > A 'simpler' way is to buy a DVD recorder deck, plug the VHS into
    >that, and press record. Usually gives most users very high-quality
    >copies that look great. Saves you the trouble of babysitting a PC, too.
  44. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    >> The thing you don't realize is that VHS is of a lower resolution
    >>system to begin with than DV video. So, VHS to DV conversion results in
    >>the retention of basically 99%+ of the original VHS quality for the most
    >>part. (Yes, always some compression artifacts if you really, really
    >>stress test a system, but in real-life, you won't see or notice
    >>anything.) Any system with greater bandwidth and resolution than a
    >>lower quality system can encode the lower quality system w/o problems,
    >>in general.
    >
    > But will also encode all the noise involved in VHS

    The assumption in the beginning was that the author wanted to encode
    DVDs that 'looked' just like the original source VHS. Here, I'm
    assuming blemished, noise, defects and all, with the exception of a
    simply pass through a TBC & noise correcting VHS deck.

    If we wanted to create a DVD that was cleaned up, yes, that's doable,
    too, but very time consuming and you'll really have to find the best
    filters and settings to clean up a noisy video by trial and error.
  45. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > Going from VHS to DVD is a waste of time! I just recently realized it. Just
    > like many of you,

    Only took some time the figure it out, then it was a breeze.

    > I'd spend hours and days trying to convert some VHS footage to DVD. But the
    > end result was always worse than original, no matter what you'd do.

    You're not doing it right.

    > The idea is to have the end result
    > identical to source. It will never happen.

    It will and it does.

    > When you digitize the video, there's a certain degree of degradation.

    If you use digitizers in $49-100 range, yes.

    > you use Huffyuv or DV would compress your footage. And then you further
    > compress it to DVD compliant MPEG 2 file.

    You don't have to do it twice. Once you have an AVI, or whatever, you
    can go straight to MPEG2

    > So basically what you have is Analog->Digital->Compression->Compression-
    > Analog.

    Not much of a problem with good equipment, including TV. Many new ones
    take digital input as well. My 3 y/o Sony entertainment center
    (middle-of-the-line kind) has digital inputs and outputs on
    everything, including the AV box.

    > And this is just as some claim to preserve a footage 'cause VHS deteriorates.

    Doesn't that make sense? :[

    > But VHS only deteriorates when you use it. When you just keep them in cool
    > storage, nothing will happen to them.

    Good. Why not just throw it out, if you're not going to watch it?

    > So I found a good solution. Just copy VHS to another VHS or S-VHS.

    And there's no degradation there?

    > there's a quality loss, but it is a tiny one.

    More then you would lose with good digitizing equipment.

    > You don't go analog->digital->analog. You just go
    > analog->analog.

    .... which guarantees loss of quality, due to the nature of analog
    communication.

    > The results are much better.

    .... only because you haven't figured out the DVD conversion process
    right yet.


    > I don't know about you, but I'm off DVDR market.
    >

    Have you tried www.dvdrhelp.com? They have a tutorial section, which
    has write-ups on any kind of conversion you'll ever want to do. Then
    if something is not clear, ask questions on the forum - because of
    those people and information gathered there, I have had 100% success
    rate (sometimes took a while) in anything I did regarding digital
    video.


    Good Luck,

    Igor.
  46. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > As a start should I copy them to MiniDV maybe via
    > a bit of editing on the PC and keep a copy on DV tape? I don't have a DVD
    > writer yet.

    It's a good idea. Even when you do get the burner, you should still
    keep it on MiniDV, since you may want to re-edit it later, and it's
    much more difficult when video is already compressed or burned as a
    movie DVD.

    I also split my video project DV files into pieces under 20 minutes
    long, so that I can put the files on DVD as raw AVI (not DVD
    compatible) just for storage purposes.

    > That's another consideration - do I buy a burner for the PC or
    > an under TV recorder?

    Definetly PC. It's cheaper and if you ever want to do editing, you
    won't need to drag your PC downstairs to record it.


    Igor.
  47. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
    > Richard Ragon <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote:
    > : copy.. However, I personally have a Canopus-300 which actually cleans up
    > : some of the shortcomings of the video signal, plus once you digitize
    > : your footage, and can run a few filters and a little tweaking on color
    > : corrections, and you can actually end up with a better copy of that
    > : footage. I capture with a very high data rate (not DV) in a near
    > : uncompressed format. The losses from this are indistinguishable to the
    > : human eye, if any.
    >
    > I thought Canopus was using Canopus DV codec. Let me know otherwise. I was
    > looking into Canopus, but they told me the best way to buy this Canopus MBR
    > or smth that captures directly in MPEG2. But this way they also compress
    > the audio. And I want my audio to be PCM.
    >
    > --Leonid

    The Canopus -300 is a DV bridge really. It simply converts a analog
    signal from a composite RCA jack, and moves it over to a Firewire
    in/out. You can then use what ever capture codec you like.

    -Richard
  48. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Richard Ragon <bsema01@hanaho.com> wrote:
    : The Canopus -300 is a DV bridge really. It simply converts a analog

    That's the thing - DV bridge. DV doesn't mean uncompressed. DV is a compressed
    format.

    : signal from a composite RCA jack, and moves it over to a Firewire
    : in/out. You can then use what ever capture codec you like.

    In the form of DV. Then you can convert DV to uncompressed, but the quality
    is still DV.

    --Leonid
Ask a new question

Read More

Tuner Cards DVD Video Graphics