HUFFYUV or Canopus ADVC300 for best VHS analog capture?

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,alt.video.dvd.authoring (More info?)

I have about 40 VHS tapes I want to transfer to DVD and it looks like
I've been doing it "wrong" so far. This is the current setup I use:

VHS tape deck player (normal VHS not SVHS) into...
analog inputs of Sony VX-2000 camcorder into...
firewire card fed captured by...
Adobe Premire Pro saved as...
DV AVI files (13 gigabytes per hour)

After converting about a dozen tapes using this method, I've now
learned that using a DV codec and creating DV AVI files directly from
VHS tapes with my camcorder is a low-quality way of transferring the
content. Apparently, the MPEG2 algorithm will further degrade the
random noise & specks of the analog video source and result in a poor
quality DVD.

My intention is to archive the VHS content to DVD with good enough
quality that I could feel comfortable throwing the old tapes away.
Yes, I know you can spend $100,000 on top-tier broadcast equipment but
I'm guessing you can get 99% of the high-quality with cheaper
consumer-grade devices.

After doing some research, it looks like the best practice for higher
quality (especially VHS tapes) is Huffyuv. However, I noticed that
Canopus has a new device (the ADVC300) that specifically cleans up
analog videotapes (such as VHS).

So the overview of the two methods as I see it...

Method #1: Huffyuv
**use digital filter algorithms to clean up the signal
**Buy another analog-digital capture card that can use Huffyuv codec
**larger files (20+ gb an hour??)

Method #2: Use the new Canopus ADVC300 tool
http://www.canopus.us/US/products/ADVC300/pm_advc300.asp
**creates DV AVI but it's CLEANED UP prior to DV compression
**looks to be somewhat more straightforward than Huffyuv approach

Some questions:
Considering the new Canopus ADVC300, is Huffyuv overkill for what I
want to do?
Should I buy a VCR with s-video output? (None of my tapes are SVHS
and I was wondering if the s-video output would improve anything.)
What analog-digital capture card should I buy that can utilize
Huffyuv codec?
What's everybody else doing to get quality archives of VHS onto
DVDR??


Comments and advice welcome...
27 answers Last reply
More about huffyuv canopus advc300 analog capture
  1. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,alt.video.dvd.authoring (More info?)

    J.W. <jwngaa@att.net> wrote:

    : I have about 40 VHS tapes I want to transfer to DVD and it looks like
    : I've been doing it "wrong" so far. This is the current setup I use:

    : VHS tape deck player (normal VHS not SVHS) into...
    : analog inputs of Sony VX-2000 camcorder into...
    : firewire card fed captured by...
    : Adobe Premire Pro saved as...
    : DV AVI files (13 gigabytes per hour)

    : After converting about a dozen tapes using this method, I've now
    : learned that using a DV codec and creating DV AVI files directly from

    That's true. But all you need to do is to compare your end result to original
    VHS tapes. If you don't find much of a difference, you're good. If you find
    a big difference and want to re-do the stuff, then read further.

    : Method #1: Huffyuv
    : **use digital filter algorithms to clean up the signal
    : **Buy another analog-digital capture card that can use Huffyuv codec
    : **larger files (20+ gb an hour??)

    You will need to buy a capture (TV Tuner card) that will do a great AD (analog
    to digital) conversion into Huffyuv codec AVI. Then there's a possibility that
    your sound will be a bit out of sync with your video, so you will have to
    adjust it. Then you will need to use software encoding method to encode into
    a DVD format.

    Pros: You can edit the sound, replace, separate it etc etc. You are able to
    have uncompress sound, Dolby sound, mpeg-2 sound, ou name it for a DVD.
    If you have a very good soundcard like Audiophile 2496, you are taking
    advantage of better ADC than Canopus has.
    If you need to transfer from LaserDisc using digital sound, soundcard
    is the only way to go.
    Cons: The whole process takes a lot of time before you start authoring a DVD.
    Converting an hour video to MPEG-2 takes 6 hours!

    : Method #2: Use the new Canopus ADVC300 tool
    : http://www.canopus.us/US/products/ADVC300/pm_advc300.asp
    : **creates DV AVI but it's CLEANED UP prior to DV compression
    : **looks to be somewhat more straightforward than Huffyuv approach

    I haven't had Canopus, but I know it's a good quality product. So you may end
    up with the same quality as Method 1 and it may take about the same amount of
    time to convert DV AVI into a DVD compliant MPEG-2. That's why consider
    Method 3.

    Method 3:
    http://www.canopus.us/US/products/MPEGPRO_MVR/pm_MPEGPRO_MVR.asp

    Pros: This records directly to DVD compliant MPEG-2. No extra time needed.
    Cons: Records into MPEG-2 - you can't edit anything including sound.

    So depending if you want to do post processing editing or not, you may want
    to decide between methods 1 and 3.

    : What analog-digital capture card should I buy that can utilize
    : Huffyuv codec?

    Any TV Tuner card can work with Huffyuv codec. When you buy the card, make
    sure it's Philips based and not Conexant based.

    --Leonid
  2. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,alt.video.dvd.authoring (More info?)

    "Leonid Makarovsky" <venom@cs.bu.edu> wrote in message
    news:c7mtkj$2v8$1@news3.bu.edu...
    > J.W. <jwngaa@att.net> wrote:
    >
    > : I have about 40 VHS tapes I want to transfer to DVD and it looks like
    > : I've been doing it "wrong" so far. This is the current setup I use:
    >
    > : VHS tape deck player (normal VHS not SVHS) into...
    > : analog inputs of Sony VX-2000 camcorder into...
    > : firewire card fed captured by...
    > : Adobe Premire Pro saved as...
    > : DV AVI files (13 gigabytes per hour)
    >
    > : After converting about a dozen tapes using this method, I've now
    > : learned that using a DV codec and creating DV AVI files directly from
    >
    > That's true. But all you need to do is to compare your end result to
    original
    > VHS tapes. If you don't find much of a difference, you're good. If you
    find
    > a big difference and want to re-do the stuff, then read further.
    >
    > : Method #1: Huffyuv
    > : **use digital filter algorithms to clean up the signal
    > : **Buy another analog-digital capture card that can use Huffyuv codec
    > : **larger files (20+ gb an hour??)
    >
    > You will need to buy a capture (TV Tuner card) that will do a great AD
    (analog
    > to digital) conversion into Huffyuv codec AVI. Then there's a possibility
    that
    > your sound will be a bit out of sync with your video, so you will have to
    > adjust it. Then you will need to use software encoding method to encode
    into
    > a DVD format.
    >
    > Pros: You can edit the sound, replace, separate it etc etc. You are able
    to
    > have uncompress sound, Dolby sound, mpeg-2 sound, ou name it for a
    DVD.
    > If you have a very good soundcard like Audiophile 2496, you are
    taking
    > advantage of better ADC than Canopus has.
    > If you need to transfer from LaserDisc using digital sound,
    soundcard
    > is the only way to go.
    > Cons: The whole process takes a lot of time before you start authoring a
    DVD.
    > Converting an hour video to MPEG-2 takes 6 hours!
    >
    > : Method #2: Use the new Canopus ADVC300 tool
    > : http://www.canopus.us/US/products/ADVC300/pm_advc300.asp
    > : **creates DV AVI but it's CLEANED UP prior to DV compression
    > : **looks to be somewhat more straightforward than Huffyuv approach
    >
    > I haven't had Canopus, but I know it's a good quality product. So you may
    end
    > up with the same quality as Method 1 and it may take about the same amount
    of
    > time to convert DV AVI into a DVD compliant MPEG-2. That's why consider
    > Method 3.
    >
    > Method 3:
    > http://www.canopus.us/US/products/MPEGPRO_MVR/pm_MPEGPRO_MVR.asp
    >
    > Pros: This records directly to DVD compliant MPEG-2. No extra time needed.
    > Cons: Records into MPEG-2 - you can't edit anything including sound.


    I have had no trouble editing Mpeg2 with Tmpeg or Nero Vision Express 2.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,alt.video.dvd.authoring (More info?)

    "Leonid Makarovsky" <venom@cs.bu.edu> wrote in message
    news:c7mtkj$2v8$1@news3.bu.edu...
    > J.W. <jwngaa@att.net> wrote:
    >
    > : I have about 40 VHS tapes I want to transfer to DVD and it looks like
    > : I've been doing it "wrong" so far. This is the current setup I use:
    >
    > : VHS tape deck player (normal VHS not SVHS) into...
    > : analog inputs of Sony VX-2000 camcorder into...
    > : firewire card fed captured by...
    > : Adobe Premire Pro saved as...
    > : DV AVI files (13 gigabytes per hour)
    >
    > : After converting about a dozen tapes using this method, I've now
    > : learned that using a DV codec and creating DV AVI files directly from
    >
    > That's true. But all you need to do is to compare your end result to
    original
    > VHS tapes. If you don't find much of a difference, you're good. If you
    find
    > a big difference and want to re-do the stuff, then read further.
    >
    > : Method #1: Huffyuv
    > : **use digital filter algorithms to clean up the signal
    > : **Buy another analog-digital capture card that can use Huffyuv codec
    > : **larger files (20+ gb an hour??)
    >
    > You will need to buy a capture (TV Tuner card) that will do a great AD
    (analog
    > to digital) conversion into Huffyuv codec AVI. Then there's a possibility
    that
    > your sound will be a bit out of sync with your video, so you will have to
    > adjust it. Then you will need to use software encoding method to encode
    into
    > a DVD format.
    >
    > Pros: You can edit the sound, replace, separate it etc etc. You are able
    to
    > have uncompress sound, Dolby sound, mpeg-2 sound, ou name it for a
    DVD.
    > If you have a very good soundcard like Audiophile 2496, you are
    taking
    > advantage of better ADC than Canopus has.
    > If you need to transfer from LaserDisc using digital sound,
    soundcard
    > is the only way to go.
    > Cons: The whole process takes a lot of time before you start authoring a
    DVD.
    > Converting an hour video to MPEG-2 takes 6 hours!
    >
    > : Method #2: Use the new Canopus ADVC300 tool
    > : http://www.canopus.us/US/products/ADVC300/pm_advc300.asp
    > : **creates DV AVI but it's CLEANED UP prior to DV compression
    > : **looks to be somewhat more straightforward than Huffyuv approach
    >
    > I haven't had Canopus, but I know it's a good quality product. So you may
    end
    > up with the same quality as Method 1 and it may take about the same amount
    of
    > time to convert DV AVI into a DVD compliant MPEG-2. That's why consider
    > Method 3.
    >
    > Method 3:
    > http://www.canopus.us/US/products/MPEGPRO_MVR/pm_MPEGPRO_MVR.asp


    It was nasty of Canopus to raise the price of this $50.

    See also:

    http://shop.store.yahoo.com/toolfarm/campmvr.html
  4. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On 10 May 2004 03:41:07 GMT, Leonid Makarovsky <venom@cs.bu.edu>
    wrote:

    >J.W. <jwngaa@att.net> wrote:
    >
    >: I have about 40 VHS tapes I want to transfer to DVD and it looks like
    >: I've been doing it "wrong" so far. This is the current setup I use:
    >
    >: VHS tape deck player (normal VHS not SVHS) into...
    >: analog inputs of Sony VX-2000 camcorder into...
    >: firewire card fed captured by...
    >: Adobe Premire Pro saved as...
    >: DV AVI files (13 gigabytes per hour)
    >
    >: After converting about a dozen tapes using this method, I've now
    >: learned that using a DV codec and creating DV AVI files directly from
    >
    >That's true. But all you need to do is to compare your end result to original
    >VHS tapes. If you don't find much of a difference, you're good. If you find
    >a big difference and want to re-do the stuff, then read further.


    I read so many newsgroup messages that said they were very
    dissatisfied with the DVD results. (And I think you were the author
    of one of those messages.) I really didn't want to waste the time and
    trash a DVDR just to find out what everyone else already knew. If
    everyone says something is great, I'm a little skeptical but if
    everyone says something is bad, I'll go ahead and believe it and spare
    myself the headache of repeating everyone else's mistake.

    I didn't make it clear in my original post but I was wondering if the
    general advice in the past about Huffyuv is still relevant considering
    that the Canopus ADVC300 is greatly improved from ADVC100. The
    ADVC300 has noise filters, time-base-correction, etc which may make
    the huffyuv+digital noise filter overkill.

    I guess if someone says, "yeah I use to do disk-intensive and
    time-intensive huffyuv but now with the new ADVC300, I quit that and
    cut down my workflow for VHS-to-DVD immensely." -- that would be very
    interesting to me.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,alt.video.dvd.authoring (More info?)

    "J.W." wrote ...
    > I have about 40 VHS tapes I want to transfer to DVD and it looks like
    > I've been doing it "wrong" so far. This is the current setup I use:
    >
    > VHS tape deck player (normal VHS not SVHS) into...
    > analog inputs of Sony VX-2000 camcorder into...
    > firewire card fed captured by...
    > Adobe Premire Pro saved as...
    > DV AVI files (13 gigabytes per hour)
    >
    > After converting about a dozen tapes using this method, I've now
    > learned that using a DV codec and creating DV AVI files directly from
    > VHS tapes with my camcorder is a low-quality way of transferring the
    > content.

    You must have exceptional VHS tapes to consider this "low-quality"
    I've never seen VHS tapes this good.

    > Apparently, the MPEG2 algorithm will further degrade the
    > random noise & specks of the analog video source and result
    > in a poor quality DVD.

    Have you actually seen artifacts with your material, or are
    you just chasing theoretical possibilities?

    > My intention is to archive the VHS content to DVD with good enough
    > quality that I could feel comfortable throwing the old tapes away.
    > Yes, I know you can spend $100,000 on top-tier broadcast equipment but
    > I'm guessing you can get 99% of the high-quality with cheaper
    > consumer-grade devices.
    >
    > After doing some research, it looks like the best practice for higher
    > quality (especially VHS tapes) is Huffyuv.

    HuffyUV is a zeero-compression (lossless) codec, is it not?
    What is the point in using HuffyUV for DV as there is *no further
    loss* when the DV stream (which comes from the camcorder/VCR
    via firewire) is stored as an AVI-DV file.

    > However, I noticed that Canopus has a new device (the ADVC300)
    > that specifically cleans up analog videotapes (such as VHS).

    If you have tapes that need timebase correction, dropout
    compensation, color tweaking, etc. etc. then hardware such
    as the Canopus ADVC-300 may be a good solution. However
    if your tapes are this bad, then storing VHS captures in HuffyUV
    is like buying a Cadillac Escalade to haul your trash in.

    > So the overview of the two methods as I see it...
    >
    > Method #1: Huffyuv

    IMHO, you haven't made a case for using HuffyUV vs plain
    ordinary AVI-DV Unless you are buying an expensive, lossless
    A/D capture hardware.

    > **use digital filter algorithms to clean up the signal
    > **Buy another analog-digital capture card that can use Huffyuv codec
    > **larger files (20+ gb an hour??)

    DV is compressed 5:1, so uncompressed (HuffyUV) is
    more likely something on the order of 65GB/hour.
    Seems like outrageous overkill for old VHS captures.

    > Method #2: Use the new Canopus ADVC300 tool
    > http://www.canopus.us/US/products/ADVC300/pm_advc300.asp
    > **creates DV AVI but it's CLEANED UP prior to DV compression
    > **looks to be somewhat more straightforward than Huffyuv approach
    >
    > Some questions:
    > Considering the new Canopus ADVC300, is Huffyuv overkill
    > for what I want to do?

    Seems very much so to me.

    > Should I buy a VCR with s-video output? (None of my tapes are SVHS
    > and I was wondering if the s-video output would improve anything.)

    There is some improvement (for several reasons). But the
    quality of your VHS tapes may not be sufficient to make this
    worthwhile.

    > What analog-digital capture card should I buy that can utilize
    > Huffyuv codec?

    Overkill for capturing old VHS tapes, IMHO.

    > What's everybody else doing to get quality archives of VHS onto
    > DVDR??

    1) Direct MPEG recording using cheap video-card capture stuff.
    2) DV converstion and AVI-DV storage (just as you are doing).

    If you are worried about AVI-DV to MPEG conversion artifacts,
    downgrade to a cheap capture card with software that directly
    writes MPEG files. It may be completely sufficient for your old
    VHS tapes.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,alt.video.dvd.authoring (More info?)

    On Mon, 10 May 2004 08:25:47 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
    <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

    >"J.W." wrote ...
    >> I have about 40 VHS tapes I want to transfer to DVD and it looks like
    >> I've been doing it "wrong" so far. This is the current setup I use:
    >>
    >> VHS tape deck player (normal VHS not SVHS) into...
    >> analog inputs of Sony VX-2000 camcorder into...
    >> firewire card fed captured by...
    >> Adobe Premire Pro saved as...
    >> DV AVI files (13 gigabytes per hour)
    >>
    >> After converting about a dozen tapes using this method, I've now
    >> learned that using a DV codec and creating DV AVI files directly from
    >> VHS tapes with my camcorder is a low-quality way of transferring the
    >> content.
    >
    >You must have exceptional VHS tapes to consider this "low-quality"
    >I've never seen VHS tapes this good.
    >
    >> Apparently, the MPEG2 algorithm will further degrade the
    >> random noise & specks of the analog video source and result
    >> in a poor quality DVD.
    >
    >Have you actually seen artifacts with your material, or are
    >you just chasing theoretical possibilities?

    I'm chasing "theoretical possibilities". I've read several web
    articles about these issues and smart people in this newsgroup have
    complained about the final output DVD quality. I'm not sure I need to
    trash several blank DVDRs to find out what everybody else already
    knows.

    Here's an example newsgroup message:
    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=c4imj8%24l92%241%40news3.bu.edu&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain


    >>
    >> After doing some research, it looks like the best practice for higher
    >> quality (especially VHS tapes) is Huffyuv.
    >
    >HuffyUV is a zeero-compression (lossless) codec, is it not?
    >What is the point in using HuffyUV for DV as there is *no further
    >loss* when the DV stream (which comes from the camcorder/VCR
    >via firewire) is stored as an AVI-DV file.

    Using Huffyuv allows digital filter processing on the uncompressed
    stream *BEFORE* it gets converted to the compressed DV25 format. I
    was under the impression that the digital filtering would be more
    effective cleaning up the specks and noise on the Huffyuv file instead
    of the DV25 file.

    >> However, I noticed that Canopus has a new device (the ADVC300)
    >> that specifically cleans up analog videotapes (such as VHS).
    >
    >If you have tapes that need timebase correction, dropout
    >compensation, color tweaking, etc. etc. then hardware such
    >as the Canopus ADVC-300 may be a good solution. However
    >if your tapes are this bad, then storing VHS captures in HuffyUV
    >is like buying a Cadillac Escalade to haul your trash in.

    It seems like we are talking about two different things. I'd only
    want to go through the trouble of Huffyuv BECAUSE the source tapes ARE
    bad. Apparently, the assortment of fancy cleanup digital filters out
    there work BETTER on uncompressed AVI (such as Huffyuv) than the
    slightly compressed AVI (such as dvcam DV25). Now I haven't tried any
    of this--just read bits and pieces on google.

    >> So the overview of the two methods as I see it...
    >>
    >> Method #1: Huffyuv
    >
    >IMHO, you haven't made a case for using HuffyUV vs plain
    >ordinary AVI-DV Unless you are buying an expensive, lossless
    >A/D capture hardware.

    I don't think hardware is the issue. Instead, I think the crucial
    issue is the application of digital filters and where in the chain
    they would work the best. Do the cleaning filters work just as well
    on compressed DV25 as they do on Huffyuv?

    >
    >> **use digital filter algorithms to clean up the signal
    >> **Buy another analog-digital capture card that can use Huffyuv codec
    >> **larger files (20+ gb an hour??)
    >
    >DV is compressed 5:1, so uncompressed (HuffyUV) is
    >more likely something on the order of 65GB/hour.
    >Seems like outrageous overkill for old VHS captures.

    The 65gb/hour WOULD be overkill if there was no digital processing
    being done on the raw AVI. I thought this is what some people were
    doing to get good results. Am I missing something???


    >> Should I buy a VCR with s-video output? (None of my tapes are SVHS
    >> and I was wondering if the s-video output would improve anything.)
    >
    >There is some improvement (for several reasons). But the
    >quality of your VHS tapes may not be sufficient to make this
    >worthwhile.

    So far, I've gotten inconsistent answers on this. Some have said
    s-video output will do nothing for standard VHS tapes. You have said
    it will be "some improvement". I guess I'll get a SVHS tape deck just
    to be on the safe side.

    >1) Direct MPEG recording using cheap video-card capture stuff.
    >2) DV converstion and AVI-DV storage (just as you are doing).
    >
    >If you are worried about AVI-DV to MPEG conversion artifacts,
    >downgrade to a cheap capture card with software that directly
    >writes MPEG files. It may be completely sufficient for your old
    >VHS tapes.

    I can't do direct MPEG conversion because I need to chop up the AVI
    files at the frame level before converting to MPEG.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,alt.video.dvd.authoring (More info?)

    "J.W." wrote ...
    > I'm chasing "theoretical possibilities". I've read several web
    > articles about these issues and smart people in this newsgroup have
    > complained about the final output DVD quality. I'm not sure I need to
    > trash several blank DVDRs

    A few dozen DVDr disks are infiinitely cheaper than the hardware
    you are talking about buying!

    > to find out what everybody else already knows.

    Remember that the information you are reading is from the POV
    of those particular individuals and based on THEIR combination
    of video material, hardware, software, experience, expectations,
    resources, time constraints, etc. etc. etc.

    > Here's an example newsgroup message:
    >
    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=c4imj8%24l92%241%40news3.bu.edu&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

    Sounds like he is trying to make DVDs of commercial videotapes.
    Or he may have unreasonably high expectatioins, or a Gen-X
    "Sesame Street/MTV" 30-second attention span.

    > >HuffyUV is a zeero-compression (lossless) codec, is it not?
    > >What is the point in using HuffyUV for DV as there is *no further
    > >loss* when the DV stream (which comes from the camcorder/VCR
    > >via firewire) is stored as an AVI-DV file.
    >
    > Using Huffyuv allows digital filter processing on the uncompressed
    > stream *BEFORE* it gets converted to the compressed DV25 format.

    Not clear why DV25 even enters into this scenario. If you are going
    to the expense of a high-end capture card and scads of disk space for
    uncompressed HuffyUV, just convert to MPEG directly from the
    (post-processing) HuffyUV files.

    Of couse, my opinion is that this is flaming overkill for capturing
    home movies on old VHS tapes. Even the pros in Hollywood with
    unlimited budgets likely don't go to this kind of effort to preserve
    old amateur VHS material.

    > I was under the impression that the digital filtering would be more
    > effective cleaning up the specks and noise on the Huffyuv file instead
    > of the DV25 file.

    Quite possibly. The question of whether preserving old VHS
    tapes is worth all this effort is yet another question however.

    > >> However, I noticed that Canopus has a new device (the ADVC300)
    > >> that specifically cleans up analog videotapes (such as VHS).
    > >
    > >If you have tapes that need timebase correction, dropout
    > >compensation, color tweaking, etc. etc. then hardware such
    > >as the Canopus ADVC-300 may be a good solution. However
    > >if your tapes are this bad, then storing VHS captures in HuffyUV
    > >is like buying a Cadillac Escalade to haul your trash in.
    >
    > It seems like we are talking about two different things. I'd only
    > want to go through the trouble of Huffyuv BECAUSE the source
    > tapes ARE bad. Apparently, the assortment of fancy cleanup
    > digital filters out there work BETTER on uncompressed AVI
    > (such as Huffyuv) than the slightly compressed AVI (such as
    > dvcam DV25). Now I haven't tried any of this--just read bits
    > and pieces on google.

    1) Exactly what kinds of artifacts are YOU seeing with YOUR
    material that you want to correct?
    2) Can you even do these kinds of cleanup with software?

    IME, using hardware (such as the ADVC-300) is almost infinitely
    better, cheaper AND faster than capturing uncompressed and
    filtering in software. Besides, there are many artifacts (like
    time-base errors) that are practically impossible to correct in
    software AFTER the video has been captured and cast into ones
    and zeroes.

    ....
    > I don't think hardware is the issue. Instead, I think the crucial
    > issue is the application of digital filters and where in the chain
    > they would work the best. Do the cleaning filters work just as
    > well on compressed DV25 as they do on Huffyuv?

    The real question is whether all this software cleanup is either
    better or cheaper or faster than using hardware (ADVC-300,
    etc.)

    Personally, I use one of my Panasonic AG-1980 SVHS VCRs,
    a low-end broadcast TBC (Horita, $500, used on eBay) and a
    ADVC-100 (or my Sony DSR-20 DVCAM VCR). I doubt that
    ANY amount of software (and the time and disk space to deploy
    it) would accomplish the kind of basic VHS recovery that this
    combination (or similar hardware) offers.

    ....
    > The 65gb/hour WOULD be overkill if there was no digital
    > processing being done on the raw AVI. I thought this is
    > what some people were doing to get good results. Am I
    > missing something???

    I think what you are missing is some real-world experiments
    with YOUR hardware, YOUR software, and YOUR video.
    You can't "dry-lab" this stuff. Advice on Usenet (including
    my own) varies all over the map from words of gold from
    world authorities, to the ranting of people who know nothing
    about what they are talking about. Take it all with a grain of
    salt and do your own experiments with your own equipment
    and video material.

    ....
    > So far, I've gotten inconsistent answers on this. Some have
    > said s-video output will do nothing for standard VHS tapes.
    > You have said it will be "some improvement". I guess I'll
    > get a SVHS tape deck just to be on the safe side.

    Seems like folly to just go out and buy something when you
    don't know it will have any positive cost/benefit. Unless you
    are rolling in money, of course.

    > I can't do direct MPEG conversion because I need to chop
    > up the AVI files at the frame level before converting to MPEG.

    There are many people who claim to be able to successfully edit
    MPEG files (see posts from "luminos" et al.) Personally, I wouldn't
    worry about it and just use AVI-DV unless I ran into some real
    problem.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Sun, 09 May 2004 21:23:16 -0500, J.W. <jwngaa@att.net> wrote:

    >After doing some research, it looks like the best practice for higher
    >quality (especially VHS tapes) is Huffyuv.

    Certainly. It should yield better results than DV as a starting
    material. If you have enough free space in the harddrive, that's the
    way to go.

    In my own case, I capture at 704x480 (or 576 for PAL), trim, crop, and
    filter (denoise, may be some adjustments in light and color), all of
    which would mean a re-encoding with DV, but no problem with Huffyuv.
    Then make it into 352x480 (Avisynth's HorizontalReduceBy2), which I
    encode with Tmpgenc in CQ mode (100% CQ is about 6500-7000 kbps; 85%
    is much lower, and still very good quality; DVDs use to be 65%). That
    resolution (D2, or half-D1) is closer to the VHS quality, and can
    provide excellent results due to the high quality encoding while
    giving you a smaller file in the end (IOW, you can fit more content
    per DVD).

    > Considering the new Canopus ADVC300, is Huffyuv overkill for what I
    >want to do?

    Huffyuv requires more drive space. Canopus can process the image. But
    you may want to control that yourself, as only you know what pleases
    you best.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Bariloche wrote:
    >
    > On Sun, 09 May 2004 21:23:16 -0500, J.W. <jwngaa@att.net> wrote:
    >
    > >After doing some research, it looks like the best practice for higher
    > >quality (especially VHS tapes) is Huffyuv.
    >
    > Certainly. It should yield better results than DV as a starting
    > material. If you have enough free space in the harddrive, that's the
    > way to go.
    >
    > In my own case, I capture at 704x480 (or 576 for PAL), trim, crop, and
    > filter (denoise, may be some adjustments in light and color), all of
    > which would mean a re-encoding with DV, but no problem with Huffyuv.
    > Then make it into 352x480 (Avisynth's HorizontalReduceBy2), which I
    > encode with Tmpgenc in CQ mode (100% CQ is about 6500-7000 kbps; 85%
    > is much lower, and still very good quality; DVDs use to be 65%). That
    > resolution (D2, or half-D1) is closer to the VHS quality, and can

    That's fine. However, I would use Bicubic instead (I think
    ReduceBy2 is bilinear). However, you just should compare it and
    see for yourself. I also would use 2 pass VBR.

    I think most important is the denoise filter. What filter are
    you using here?

    Btw, I don't get your comment "which would mean a re-enconding
    with DV, and not Huffyuv". Why? You are using AviSynth, so there
    is no need for reencoding.

    > provide excellent results due to the high quality encoding while
    > giving you a smaller file in the end (IOW, you can fit more content
    > per DVD).
    >
    > > Considering the new Canopus ADVC300, is Huffyuv overkill for what I
    > >want to do?
    >
    > Huffyuv requires more drive space. Canopus can process the image. But
    > you may want to control that yourself, as only you know what pleases
    > you best.

    > > Should I buy a VCR with s-video output? (None of my tapes are SVHS
    > > and I was wondering if the s-video output would improve anything.)

    No, it doesn't improve anything if your tapes are VHS.

    But s-video-SVHS gives much better quality than composite-VHS.

    > > **creates DV AVI but it's CLEANED UP prior to DV compression

    Denoising during post processing gives in general better quality.
    So, I wouldn't call this an advantage.

    Regards,

    Wilbert
  10. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,alt.video.dvd.authoring (More info?)

    i make a lot of music dvds from mtv into my vcr(pass through) , into a
    canopus converter then panasonic dv camcorder(pass through)
    what i do is i have a video rca into the canopus , then a svhs lead out of
    canopus into panasonic dv camcorder,
    then firewire out from panasonic dv into pc.
    i noticed this has sharpened the picture up considerably for me,
    however the drawback is the audio on some has been out about a quater of a
    second.
    takes time to fix it all up , but i found the result was better than before
    i involved the dv camcorder.

    "J.W." <jwngaa@att.net> wrote in message
    news:c3pt909970vvltqj9r333p3q67nmf3ehs0@4ax.com...
    >
    > I have about 40 VHS tapes I want to transfer to DVD and it looks like
    > I've been doing it "wrong" so far. This is the current setup I use:
    >
    > VHS tape deck player (normal VHS not SVHS) into...
    > analog inputs of Sony VX-2000 camcorder into...
    > firewire card fed captured by...
    > Adobe Premire Pro saved as...
    > DV AVI files (13 gigabytes per hour)
    >
    > After converting about a dozen tapes using this method, I've now
    > learned that using a DV codec and creating DV AVI files directly from
    > VHS tapes with my camcorder is a low-quality way of transferring the
    > content. Apparently, the MPEG2 algorithm will further degrade the
    > random noise & specks of the analog video source and result in a poor
    > quality DVD.
    >
    > My intention is to archive the VHS content to DVD with good enough
    > quality that I could feel comfortable throwing the old tapes away.
    > Yes, I know you can spend $100,000 on top-tier broadcast equipment but
    > I'm guessing you can get 99% of the high-quality with cheaper
    > consumer-grade devices.
    >
    > After doing some research, it looks like the best practice for higher
    > quality (especially VHS tapes) is Huffyuv. However, I noticed that
    > Canopus has a new device (the ADVC300) that specifically cleans up
    > analog videotapes (such as VHS).
    >
    > So the overview of the two methods as I see it...
    >
    > Method #1: Huffyuv
    > **use digital filter algorithms to clean up the signal
    > **Buy another analog-digital capture card that can use Huffyuv codec
    > **larger files (20+ gb an hour??)
    >
    > Method #2: Use the new Canopus ADVC300 tool
    > http://www.canopus.us/US/products/ADVC300/pm_advc300.asp
    > **creates DV AVI but it's CLEANED UP prior to DV compression
    > **looks to be somewhat more straightforward than Huffyuv approach
    >
    > Some questions:
    > Considering the new Canopus ADVC300, is Huffyuv overkill for what I
    > want to do?
    > Should I buy a VCR with s-video output? (None of my tapes are SVHS
    > and I was wondering if the s-video output would improve anything.)
    > What analog-digital capture card should I buy that can utilize
    > Huffyuv codec?
    > What's everybody else doing to get quality archives of VHS onto
    > DVDR??
    >
    >
    > Comments and advice welcome...
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Mon, 10 May 2004 11:36:21 +0200, Wilbert Dijkhof
    <w.j.dijkhof@tue.nl> wrote:

    >I also would use 2 pass VBR.

    When you need an exact file size, that would be the best. Otherwise,
    CQ shall encode better, using exactly what's needed for achieving the
    quality you ask for.

    >I think most important is the denoise filter. What filter are
    >you using here?

    I do that with VirtualDub. I'm using Steven Don filters. First, static
    noise reduction, from 2 to 4 (more than that, and it blurs too much),
    followed by dynamic noise reduction, usually only up to 2, or even
    none at all (one needs be very careful with dynamic denoising, as it
    can make appear things in the image which shouldn't be there).

    In case there is something very wrong with the lighting, I would add
    Donald Graft's Histogram; and Donald Graft's Red/Green/Blue adjustment
    if it's the color that stinks.

    Tmgpenc denoising can also be very good, but VirtualDub's are easier
    for me to configure.

    >Btw, I don't get your comment "which would mean a re-enconding
    >with DV, and not Huffyuv". Why? You are using AviSynth, so there
    >is no need for reencoding.

    I use Avisynth to resize, and to ensure an exact framerate (ChangeFPS
    function), which is needed when you want to join several clips (the
    framerate varies at capture time). But denoising, cropping,
    trimming... I do all that with VirtualDub, and I don't mind doing it
    in several steps, saving the Avi file each time -I leave the computer
    working while I do other things. But then, it needs reencoding each
    time.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Mon, 10 May 2004 08:25:47 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
    <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

    >HuffyUV is a zeero-compression (lossless) codec, is it not?

    It is not. Zero-compression is RGB. Huffyuv is lossless, but does
    compress between 1/2 and 1/3. There is a lossy Huffyuv mode, which
    compresses more, and would still be "lossless-like" in practical
    terms.

    >What is the point in using HuffyUV for DV as there is *no further
    >loss* when the DV stream (which comes from the camcorder/VCR
    >via firewire) is stored as an AVI-DV file.

    If you need process the video several times, there would be a point in
    using Huffyuv, as each re-encoding to DV would degrade it -while
    Huffyuv is degradation-less. But I feel he is speaking of capturing as
    Huffyuv in the first place, thus introducing no degradation at all
    until the last step (encoding to mpeg).
  13. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "J.W." <jwngaa@att.net> wrote in message
    news:hf8v90l2mpnu7vlfq7b5jji17kipaggmv3@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 10 May 2004 08:25:47 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
    > <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >> Should I buy a VCR with s-video output? (None of my tapes are SVHS
    > >> and I was wondering if the s-video output would improve anything.)
    > >
    > >There is some improvement (for several reasons). But the
    > >quality of your VHS tapes may not be sufficient to make this
    > >worthwhile.

    I think you are getting S-Video and SVHS. They are two different items.

    S-Video is a method of transmitting video signals over a cable by dividing
    the video information into two signals (The chrominance information and the
    luminance information). This can produce sharper images over the standard
    "composite video" signal which has both signals on one conductor which can
    interfere with each other. Of course you need the S-video capabilities on
    both ends. It came out in the early 90's IIRC. You don't need an SVHS
    signal to possibly see the difference. I have seen the sharper images on
    several VCR's which I've used in the past by trying S-Video and "composite
    video".

    SVHS or SuperVHS claims to provide over 400 lines of horizontal resolution
    which is more than provided over standard VCR's. I have seen comparison
    demos to show the difference, and it does appear sharper.

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

    > > "Richard Crowley"wrote:
    > > >There is some improvement (for several reasons). But the
    > > >quality of your VHS tapes may not be sufficient to make this
    > > >worthwhile.


    "Rich" wrote ...
    > I think you are getting S-Video and SVHS. They are two
    > different items.

    Uh, no. As you said yourself: "You don't need an SVHS signal to
    possibly see the difference" Two of the reasons for this are...

    In many (most?) cases, VCRs with Y/C inputs/outputs are
    designed to higher quality than the average VHS VCR.

    You avoid combining Y&C (as "composite") and then having
    to separate them a few feet down at the other end of the cable.
    Separating C from Y is a major source of video artifacts.

    > S-Video is a method of transmitting video signals over a cable by dividing
    > the video information into two signals (The chrominance information and
    the
    > luminance information). This can produce sharper images over the standard
    > "composite video" signal which has both signals on one conductor which can
    > interfere with each other. Of course you need the S-video capabilities on
    > both ends. It came out in the early 90's IIRC. You don't need an SVHS
    > signal to possibly see the difference. I have seen the sharper images on
    > several VCR's which I've used in the past by trying S-Video and "composite
    > video".
    >
    > SVHS or SuperVHS claims to provide over 400 lines of horizontal resolution
    > which is more than provided over standard VCR's. I have seen comparison
    > demos to show the difference, and it does appear sharper.

    Indeed. "S-Video" (or more generally "Y/C video") has the advantage
    of keeping the luminance ("Y") and chroma ("C") signals separate so
    you don't have to deal with the artifacts of separating them at the other
    end of the cable.

    Virtally all VCRs (including original VHS) store the color and luminance
    separately. The difference with S-VHS is that the luminance has increased
    bandwidth (higher resolution). However the chroma/color part of S-VHS
    is identical to regular VHS.

    "S-Video" aka "Y/C Video" was introduced coincidentally with S-VHS
    (and Hi-8). But it is not inextricably tied to S-VHS.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    J.W. <jwngaa@att.net> wrote:
    : I read so many newsgroup messages that said they were very
    : dissatisfied with the DVD results. (And I think you were the author
    : of one of those messages.) I really didn't want to waste the time and

    I never transferred from VHS to DV to DVD. I was always going from VHS to
    HUFFYUV so I'm now pretty happy with results.

    I still think you should use trial and failure to see what suits *you* best.

    --Leonid
  16. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,alt.video.dvd.authoring (More info?)

    > Richard Crowley wrote:
    > : HuffyUV is a zeero-compression (lossless) codec, is it not?
    > : What is the point in using HuffyUV for DV as there is *no further
    > : loss* when the DV stream (which comes from the camcorder/VCR
    > : via firewire) is stored as an AVI-DV file.

    "Leonid Makarovsky" wrote ...
    > He's not using it for DV. He's using it for DVD.

    If I understand the situation properly, the SOURCE is a DV
    device. Which means that the incoming video stream is 5:1
    compressed DV (unless he buys a video capture card that
    supports uncompressed sampling). The ultimate destination
    (DVD in this case) is not the issue.
  17. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,alt.video.dvd.authoring (More info?)

    Canopus ADVC-100 to DV25 AVI, edit with Sony's Vegas, render to
    > DVD-compliant MPEG-2 video and Dolby Digital (AC-3) audio and author/burn
    > to DVD-Video.
    >
    What software are you using to capture using the Canopus ADVC ?
  18. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,alt.video.dvd.authoring (More info?)

    On Mon, 10 May 2004 11:10:10 -0500, J.W. <jwngaa@att.net> wrote:

    > I'm not sure I need to
    >trash several blank DVDRs to find out what everybody else already
    >knows.

    Ever heard of RW media ?
  19. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Wed, 12 May 2004 22:22:50 +0200, Tribal <not@real.domain> wrote:

    >On Mon, 10 May 2004 11:10:10 -0500, J.W. <jwngaa@att.net> wrote:
    >
    >> I'm not sure I need to
    >>trash several blank DVDRs to find out what everybody else already
    >>knows.
    >
    >Ever heard of RW media ?

    RW media isn't reliably readable on the DVD players I've got here.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,alt.video.dvd.authoring (More info?)

    Richard Crowley <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
    : If I understand the situation properly, the SOURCE is a DV

    This is the excerpt of his original post:
    : I have about 40 VHS tapes I want to transfer to DVD and it looks like
    : I've been doing it "wrong" so far. This is the current setup I use:
  21. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,alt.video.dvd.authoring (More info?)

    "Leonid Makarovsky" wrote ...
    > Richard Crowley wrote:
    > : If I understand the situation properly, the SOURCE is a DV

    > This is the excerpt of his original post:
    > : I have about 40 VHS tapes I want to transfer to DVD and it looks like
    > : I've been doing it "wrong" so far. This is the current setup I use:

    By snipping the final word from my sentence you substantially
    changed its meaning. If I had said what you quoted, then you
    might be correct. But you did not quote the complete sentence.
    to wit...

    "If I understand the situation properly, the SOURCE is a DV
    *DEVICE*. Which means that the incoming video stream is 5:1
    compressed DV (unless he buys a video capture card that
    supports uncompressed sampling). The ultimate destination
    (DVD in this case) is not the issue."

    By "DV device" I meant something (like a camcorder, ADVC-100
    outboard converter box, etc.) that does analog digitization AND
    5:1 DV compression before it ever gets into the computer.

    Please read (and snip) more carefully in the future.
  22. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,alt.video.dvd.authoring (More info?)

    "Leonid Makarovsky" wrote ...
    > Richard Crowley <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
    > : If I understand the situation properly, the SOURCE is a DV
    >
    > This is the excerpt of his original post:
    > : I have about 40 VHS tapes I want to transfer to DVD and it looks like
    > : I've been doing it "wrong" so far. This is the current setup I use:

    And then in the most important part (which you also snipped), he said...

    " VHS tape deck player (normal VHS not SVHS) into...
    " analog inputs of Sony VX-2000 camcorder into...
    " firewire card fed captured by...

    He is clearly using a "DV source" (the Sony VX-2000) exactly
    as I said in MY quote which was subject to your premature snippage.
  23. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,alt.video.dvd.authoring (More info?)

    Buy the Canopus ADVC300.That is the one I am buying.I know a professional
    using a Canopus ADVC100 and he recomended the 300 to me for some of the
    added features.It's a little high in price but it should do a great job on
    your tapes.Also you can turn around and sell it when you are done for close
    to what you paid for it.

    Good luck
    Troy


    J.W. <jwngaa@att.net> wrote in message
    news:c3pt909970vvltqj9r333p3q67nmf3ehs0@4ax.com...
    >
    > I have about 40 VHS tapes I want to transfer to DVD and it looks like
    > I've been doing it "wrong" so far. This is the current setup I use:
    >
    > VHS tape deck player (normal VHS not SVHS) into...
    > analog inputs of Sony VX-2000 camcorder into...
    > firewire card fed captured by...
    > Adobe Premire Pro saved as...
    > DV AVI files (13 gigabytes per hour)
    >
    > After converting about a dozen tapes using this method, I've now
    > learned that using a DV codec and creating DV AVI files directly from
    > VHS tapes with my camcorder is a low-quality way of transferring the
    > content. Apparently, the MPEG2 algorithm will further degrade the
    > random noise & specks of the analog video source and result in a poor
    > quality DVD.
    >
    > My intention is to archive the VHS content to DVD with good enough
    > quality that I could feel comfortable throwing the old tapes away.
    > Yes, I know you can spend $100,000 on top-tier broadcast equipment but
    > I'm guessing you can get 99% of the high-quality with cheaper
    > consumer-grade devices.
    >
    > After doing some research, it looks like the best practice for higher
    > quality (especially VHS tapes) is Huffyuv. However, I noticed that
    > Canopus has a new device (the ADVC300) that specifically cleans up
    > analog videotapes (such as VHS).
    >
    > So the overview of the two methods as I see it...
    >
    > Method #1: Huffyuv
    > **use digital filter algorithms to clean up the signal
    > **Buy another analog-digital capture card that can use Huffyuv codec
    > **larger files (20+ gb an hour??)
    >
    > Method #2: Use the new Canopus ADVC300 tool
    > http://www.canopus.us/US/products/ADVC300/pm_advc300.asp
    > **creates DV AVI but it's CLEANED UP prior to DV compression
    > **looks to be somewhat more straightforward than Huffyuv approach
    >
    > Some questions:
    > Considering the new Canopus ADVC300, is Huffyuv overkill for what I
    > want to do?
    > Should I buy a VCR with s-video output? (None of my tapes are SVHS
    > and I was wondering if the s-video output would improve anything.)
    > What analog-digital capture card should I buy that can utilize
    > Huffyuv codec?
    > What's everybody else doing to get quality archives of VHS onto
    > DVDR??
    >
    >
    > Comments and advice welcome...
    >
    >
  24. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,alt.video.dvd.authoring (More info?)

    Richard Crowley <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
    : "If I understand the situation properly, the SOURCE is a DV
    : *DEVICE*. Which means that the incoming video stream is 5:1
    : compressed DV (unless he buys a video capture card that
    : supports uncompressed sampling). The ultimate destination
    : (DVD in this case) is not the issue."

    No. The original source was VHS. He was transferring it using a DV device.
    That's correct. But he was thinking about a buying a capture card that supports
    HUFFYUV (Method 1). So basically he didn't want to go VHS-DV-DVD. He wanted to
    go VHS-Huffyuv-DVD(MPEG2).

    --Leonid
  25. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,alt.video.dvd.authoring (More info?)

    > HUFFYUV (Method 1). So basically he didn't want to go VHS-DV-DVD. He
    wanted to
    > go VHS-Huffyuv-DVD(MPEG2).

    Which ultimately makes much more sense. Why compress an already limited
    resolution source twice if you can easily avoid it?
  26. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Thu, 13 May 2004 09:16:35 GMT, "Troy" <alternate-root@shaw.ca>
    wrote:

    >Buy the Canopus ADVC300.That is the one I am buying.I know a professional
    >using a Canopus ADVC100 and he recomended the 300 to me for some of the
    >added features.

    I'm no expert on ADVC cards, but I believe Macrovision can only be
    defeated on the ADVC100, not the ADVC300 -in case this matters here.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,alt.video.dvd.authoring (More info?)

    On Mon, 10 May 2004 08:25:47 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
    <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

    >"J.W." wrote ...
    >> I have about 40 VHS tapes I want to transfer to DVD and it looks like
    >> I've been doing it "wrong" so far. This is the current setup I use:
    >>
    >> VHS tape deck player (normal VHS not SVHS) into...
    >> analog inputs of Sony VX-2000 camcorder into...
    >> firewire card fed captured by...
    >> Adobe Premire Pro saved as...
    >> DV AVI files (13 gigabytes per hour)
    >>
    >> After converting about a dozen tapes using this method, I've now
    >> learned that using a DV codec and creating DV AVI files directly from
    >> VHS tapes with my camcorder is a low-quality way of transferring the
    >> content.
    >> Apparently, the MPEG2 algorithm will further degrade the
    >> random noise & specks of the analog video source and result
    >> in a poor quality DVD.
    >> My intention is to archive the VHS content to DVD with good enough
    >> quality that I could feel comfortable throwing the old tapes away.
    >> Yes, I know you can spend $100,000 on top-tier broadcast equipment but
    >> I'm guessing you can get 99% of the high-quality with cheaper
    >> consumer-grade devices.
    >> After doing some research, it looks like the best practice for higher
    >> quality (especially VHS tapes) is Huffyuv.
    >> However, I noticed that Canopus has a new device (the ADVC300)
    >> that specifically cleans up analog videotapes (such as VHS).
    >> So the overview of the two methods as I see it...

    >> Method #1: Huffyuv
    >> **use digital filter algorithms to clean up the signal
    >> **Buy another analog-digital capture card that can use Huffyuv codec
    >> **larger files (20+ gb an hour??)
    >> Method #2: Use the new Canopus ADVC300 tool
    >> http://www.canopus.us/US/products/ADVC300/pm_advc300.asp
    >> **creates DV AVI but it's CLEANED UP prior to DV compression
    >> **looks to be somewhat more straightforward than Huffyuv approach

    >> Some questions:
    >> Considering the new Canopus ADVC300, is Huffyuv overkill
    >> for what I want to do?
    >> Should I buy a VCR with s-video output? (None of my tapes are SVHS
    >> and I was wondering if the s-video output would improve anything.)
    >> What analog-digital capture card should I buy that can utilize
    >> Huffyuv codec?
    >> What's everybody else doing to get quality archives of VHS onto
    >> DVDR??

    Using an SVHS machine will improve the source signal significantly. It
    won't be up to SVHS quality but you will get more than the 250 lines
    of horizontal resolution from composite VHS. The colour signal will be
    less noisy too.
    Huffy is lossless in that the original signal is fully recoverable
    from the compressed avi file it produces. It compresses at roughly
    10:1, so much bigger files than other codecs but it doesn't throw any
    info away. It is fast enough to compress full-resolution video (720 x
    480 x 30fps) in real time as it's captured. Huffyuv also supports
    lossless compression of RGB data, so it can be used for the output of
    programs like VirtualDub.

    If you want to use Huffyuv for video capture, your capture card must
    be able to capture in YUY2, UYVY, or RGB format. Most capture cards
    support one of these formats. YUY2 and UYVY will compress better and
    more quickly than RGB, so use them rather than RGB if you can.
    I would use Virtual dub to capture, point it at your card and use
    huffy to encode. I would capture at the highest resolution you can
    without dropping frames, as it will produse a better end result. You
    can do some rough editing with the finished file and then apply
    filters to remove noise. Finally use TmpgEnc to produce a vcd
    compliant mpg. There really isn't much point in producing a full D1 or
    SVHS file as the source is not up to that quality, even from an SHS
    machine. You can now do frame accurate editing to this file using
    TMPGEncDVDAuthor and add menus etc at the same time.
    A _way_ easier method would be to use a Panasonic DVD recorder with HD
    to capture, it has built in TBC, filters and a great codec. The menus
    and editing are basic, but if you burn to a finalised DVD RAM you can
    transfer to a PC to edit and author with TMPGEncDVDAuthor.
    I used to do the former but now do the latter. It gives a really good
    result and great scene access.
    If you go the Vdub way this should prove helpful
    http://www.doom9.org/capture/start.html

    tony
Ask a new question

Read More

Tuner Cards DVD Video Graphics