Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DV tape? No thanks, I'm going to pass it on through to my PC

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 5:04:10 PM

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

With the help of this newsgroup, I'm on the verge of sorting this all
out.

It appears that the best two choices for us regular types to archive
their old vhs videos is to (1) dub the vhs tape output to the input of
a digital camcorder that will then digitize and record the signal on
8mm digital tapes or (2) pass the vhs output signal though a "pass
through capable" camcorder directly to a PC hard drive.

Of course with the latter choice, it will quickly fill up a hard drive
at 13.5 GB of data per hour of digital video in the DV-AVI format.

Perhaps the best method may be to transfer only 18 minutes worth of
video at a time and then burn the 4 GB file to a DVD.

There are a few benefits as I see it:

Much less wear and tear on the camcorder heads since it is only being
used as a pass through device.
DVD's are less than 40 cents each
No need to buy a larger hard drive
Archived tape is subject to degradation or complete loss due to fire,
hurricanes, etc.

Most people who have added a DVD burner to their PC still have the
original DVD drive in the machine. This means that we can easily make
multiple copies of the DVD's and distribute them to other family
members to guard against loosing the material.

Any and all thoughts are welcome.

More about : tape pass

Anonymous
February 6, 2005 7:21:10 PM

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

mdindestin wrote ...
> Perhaps the best method may be to transfer only 18 minutes
> worth of video at a time and then burn the 4 GB file to a DVD.
>
> There are a few benefits as I see it:
>
> Much less wear and tear on the camcorder heads since
> it is only being used as a pass through device.

Agreed. No use inserting a superfluous digital tape step
whether it adds any degradation or not.

> DVD's are less than 40 cents each

And historic prescedent would suggest even less expensive
in the future.

> No need to buy a larger hard drive

Not just for storage. But editing may be a different issue.

> Archived tape is subject to degradation or complete
> loss due to fire, hurricanes, etc.

Not clear that writable optical disks are any better or
worse than magnetic tape.

> Most people who have added a DVD burner to their PC still have the
> original DVD drive in the machine. This means that we can easily make
> multiple copies of the DVD's and distribute them to other family
> members to guard against loosing the material.
>
> Any and all thoughts are welcome.

1) Certainly storing the AVI-DV files directly on DVD is the
best form of digital archive availble to most of us. However,
the inconvienence of changing disks every 20 minutes may be
a showstopper depending on the subject material and how you
package it.

2) AVI-DV is not necessarily a convienent format to circulate
to non-computer folk (like grandmothers, etc.)

3) MPEG2 (DVD) compression is generally regarded as
equivalent to VHS, so creating conventional DVD disks that
are readable on ordinary set-top players seems like a better
combination of distribution acceptance and quality maintenance.
At least that is how it seems to me.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 3:50:00 AM

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

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:110dd3nqektc209@corp.supernews.com...
> mdindestin wrote ...
>> Perhaps the best method may be to transfer only 18 minutes
>> worth of video at a time and then burn the 4 GB file to a DVD.
>>
>> There are a few benefits as I see it:
>>
>> Much less wear and tear on the camcorder heads since
>> it is only being used as a pass through device.
>
> Agreed. No use inserting a superfluous digital tape step
> whether it adds any degradation or not.
>
>> DVD's are less than 40 cents each
>
> And historic prescedent would suggest even less expensive
> in the future.
>
>> No need to buy a larger hard drive
>
> Not just for storage. But editing may be a different issue.
>
>> Archived tape is subject to degradation or complete
>> loss due to fire, hurricanes, etc.
>
> Not clear that writable optical disks are any better or
> worse than magnetic tape.
>
>> Most people who have added a DVD burner to their PC still have the
>> original DVD drive in the machine. This means that we can easily make
>> multiple copies of the DVD's and distribute them to other family
>> members to guard against loosing the material.
>>
>> Any and all thoughts are welcome.
>
> 1) Certainly storing the AVI-DV files directly on DVD is the
> best form of digital archive availble to most of us. However,
> the inconvienence of changing disks every 20 minutes may be
> a showstopper depending on the subject material and how you
> package it.
>
> 2) AVI-DV is not necessarily a convienent format to circulate
> to non-computer folk (like grandmothers, etc.)
>
> 3) MPEG2 (DVD) compression is generally regarded as
> equivalent to VHS,


What? Who says? I don't think much of your reasoning.


Also, optical disks are not used by the Library of Congress to
archive...nor any digital medium.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 6:37:48 AM

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

Please provide a little more detail and an alternative.

What is this better method that the Library of Congress uses to archive
vhs tape that does not involve any digital medium?

Mark
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 8:26:04 AM

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

"Alpha" wrote ...
>
> "Richard Crowley" wrote ...
>> 3) MPEG2 (DVD) compression is generally regarded as
>> equivalent to VHS,
>
> What? Who says? I don't think much of your reasoning.

OK. Do your own research. That is the power of the internet.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 8:32:21 AM

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

<mdindestin@hotmail.com> wrote ...
[ Also, optical disks are not used by the Library of Congress to
archive...nor any digital medium.]

> Please provide a little more detail and an alternative.
>
> What is this better method that the Library of Congress uses to
> archive vhs tape that does not involve any digital medium?

The longer we have experience with writable optical disks,
the less I trust them. I already have CDR disks that I cannot
read. They are visibly in pristine condition (no scratches,
etc.), but none of my CD drives can read parts of them. And,
perhaps even worse, some of the drives will read parts that
others won't. This seems to me like a clear indication that we
have already reached the inflection point on the lifespan
"bathtub curve".

And with the reports of "disc rot" even with commercial
optical disks (where the data is moulded into the plastic rather
than burned into the dye layer), even non-burnable optical
discs seem doubtful.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 5:44:12 PM

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

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 05:32:21 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
<rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

><mdindestin@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>[ Also, optical disks are not used by the Library of Congress to
>archive...nor any digital medium.]
>
>> Please provide a little more detail and an alternative.
>>
>> What is this better method that the Library of Congress uses to
>> archive vhs tape that does not involve any digital medium?
>
>The longer we have experience with writable optical disks,
>the less I trust them. I already have CDR disks that I cannot
>read. They are visibly in pristine condition (no scratches,
>etc.), but none of my CD drives can read parts of them. And,
>perhaps even worse, some of the drives will read parts that
>others won't. This seems to me like a clear indication that we
>have already reached the inflection point on the lifespan
>"bathtub curve".

Yes, CDR is not really suitable for long term storage. DVDRs are
*much* better. Of course, neither is as good as having a couple of
billion dollars annual budget like the Library of Congress to spend on
such endeavors.

>And with the reports of "disc rot" even with commercial
>optical disks (where the data is moulded into the plastic rather
>than burned into the dye layer), even non-burnable optical
>discs seem doubtful.

This has happened to a very low percentage of printed disks, and is
largely accepted as being due to early manufacturing defects.

--
Owamanga!
February 7, 2005 5:48:56 PM

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

Its becoming my experience that CDRs regardless of brand are unpredictable
and if its important should be duplicated routinely.


> Please provide a little more detail and an alternative.
>
> What is this better method that the Library of Congress uses to archive
> vhs tape that does not involve any digital medium?
>
> Mark
>
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 6:05:12 PM

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

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 14:48:56 GMT, "terry" <reply2group@thanks.zzz>
wrote:

>Its becoming my experience that CDRs regardless of brand are unpredictable
>and if its important should be duplicated routinely.

I suggest anyone using CDRs for archive or backup, stop now and switch
to DVDR. Spend a weekend moving any CDR archives onto DVDR.

The DVDR has a polymer substrate layer below *and* above the data
layer. CDRs only have this protection below the data layer, allowing
air pollutants access to the data layer from above which is protected
by only the thinnest varnish coating. Scratch resistance of a CDR from
the label side is almost non-existant.

Blank DVDRs are $0.40 each, and the writers are about $50.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 11:47:57 PM

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

In article <gt0f015tf1sqkim9r1nsk6dugpj7sdpscf@4ax.com>,
nomail@hotmail.com (Owamanga) wrote:
> I suggest anyone using CDRs for archive or backup, stop now and switch
> to DVDR. Spend a weekend moving any CDR archives onto DVDR.
OTOH, I find DVDR far less reliable and even branded ones stored in a cool
dark place can get flaky within 6 months to a year.

Iain Laskey
Practical PC Online www.practicalpc.co.uk
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 12:02:05 AM

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

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:47:57 GMT, i.laskeyNOT@blueyonder.co.uk (Iain
Laskey) wrote:

>In article <gt0f015tf1sqkim9r1nsk6dugpj7sdpscf@4ax.com>,
>nomail@hotmail.com (Owamanga) wrote:
>> I suggest anyone using CDRs for archive or backup, stop now and switch
>> to DVDR. Spend a weekend moving any CDR archives onto DVDR.
>OTOH, I find DVDR far less reliable and even branded ones stored in a cool
>dark place can get flaky within 6 months to a year.
>
>Iain Laskey
>Practical PC Online www.practicalpc.co.uk

6 months?

Dude!

Time to get a new writer, or cut your fingernails...

TDK DVD-R for example is rated for an archival lifespan of 100 years.

Fuji even sell DVD-RW rated for 100 years too.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 1:35:36 AM

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

In article <stlf01tukvceo7lh793edmo4aoj0r0rh1h@4ax.com>,
nomail@hotmail.com (Owamanga) wrote:
> Dude!
> Time to get a new writer, or cut your fingernails...
Short nails and 3 different burners. Mix of disks. I use them for data
rather than video - always verify after the burn.

> TDK DVD-R for example is rated for an archival lifespan of 100 years.
I know they're rated for long term archival but reality seems somewhat
different.

Iain Laskey
Practical PC Online www.practicalpc.co.uk
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 10:25:08 AM

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

"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:stlf01tukvceo7lh793edmo4aoj0r0rh1h@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:47:57 GMT, i.laskeyNOT@blueyonder.co.uk (Iain
> Laskey) wrote:
>
>>In article <gt0f015tf1sqkim9r1nsk6dugpj7sdpscf@4ax.com>,
>>nomail@hotmail.com (Owamanga) wrote:
>>> I suggest anyone using CDRs for archive or backup, stop now and
>>> switch
>>> to DVDR. Spend a weekend moving any CDR archives onto DVDR.
>>OTOH, I find DVDR far less reliable and even branded ones stored in a
>>cool
>>dark place can get flaky within 6 months to a year.
>>
>>Iain Laskey
>>Practical PC Online www.practicalpc.co.uk
>
> 6 months?
>
> Dude!
>
> Time to get a new writer, or cut your fingernails...
>
> TDK DVD-R for example is rated for an archival lifespan of 100 years.

Why not 500 or 1000, or if you are Darwinist, 1,000,000?
It is all silly anyway what are you going to do if it doesn't
reach 100? Do we think TDK will be there to recover
our data?
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 3:56:03 PM

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

>> Archived tape is subject to degradation or complete
>> loss due to fire, hurricanes, etc.

DVDs would also be lost in disasters above, unless you burn two copies of
each & store them off-site.

> 1) Certainly storing the AVI-DV files directly on DVD is the
> best form of digital archive availble to most of us. However,
> the inconvienence of changing disks every 20 minutes may be
> a showstopper depending on the subject material and how you
> package it.

If a 2 hr movie without the extras can normally fit on a 4.7Gb DVD there's
no reason why you should only be able to store 20 mins of footage per DVD.
The DV format is intended for material that will be edited, once you've done
this you're ready to output the video to a final delivery format such as
MPEG2.

> 2) AVI-DV is not necessarily a convienent format to circulate
> to non-computer folk (like grandmothers, etc.)

Exactly (see above). DVD-compliant MPEG2 is the way to go, just pop it in &
watch on TV...

> 3) MPEG2 (DVD) compression is generally regarded as
> equivalent to VHS

This is NOT true, VHS is roughly HALF the resolution of DVD quality video.
You can't get true DVD quality from a VHS source but you can still transfer
your VHS material to DVD for back-up & watching on DVD players, which are
really a modern replacement for VHS units.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 6:42:16 PM

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

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 07:25:08 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
<rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

>
>"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:stlf01tukvceo7lh793edmo4aoj0r0rh1h@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:47:57 GMT, i.laskeyNOT@blueyonder.co.uk (Iain
>> Laskey) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <gt0f015tf1sqkim9r1nsk6dugpj7sdpscf@4ax.com>,
>>>nomail@hotmail.com (Owamanga) wrote:
>>>> I suggest anyone using CDRs for archive or backup, stop now and
>>>> switch
>>>> to DVDR. Spend a weekend moving any CDR archives onto DVDR.
>>>OTOH, I find DVDR far less reliable and even branded ones stored in a
>>>cool
>>>dark place can get flaky within 6 months to a year.
>>>
>>>Iain Laskey
>>>Practical PC Online www.practicalpc.co.uk
>>
>> 6 months?
>>
>> Dude!
>>
>> Time to get a new writer, or cut your fingernails...
>>
>> TDK DVD-R for example is rated for an archival lifespan of 100 years.
>
>Why not 500 or 1000, or if you are Darwinist, 1,000,000?
>It is all silly anyway what are you going to do if it doesn't
>reach 100? Do we think TDK will be there to recover
>our data?

They might be, but we'll all be dead.

The 6 months timespan however, I hope to outlive.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 8:46:17 PM

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

>>>> Archived tape is subject to degradation or complete loss due to
fire, hurricanes, etc.>>>>>>

> DVDs would also be lost in disasters above, unless you burn two
copies of
> each & store them off-site.

Exactly, which is why I stated I would give extra copies to family
members to avoid all but an apocalyptic scenario.

> If a 2 hr movie without the extras can normally fit on a 4.7Gb DVD
there's
> no reason why you should only be able to store 20 mins of footage per
DVD.
> The DV format is intended for material that will be edited, once
you've done
> this you're ready to output the video to a final delivery format such
as
> MPEG2.

What I consider brilliant editing now, may be mediocre in a few years.
My goal remains to preserve the original video in the highest quality
format available. Taking digital video that is compressed 5:1 and then
compressing it again down to MPEG-2 does not meet that goal.

> > >2) AVI-DV is not necessarily a convienent format to circulate to
non-computer folk (like grandmothers, etc.)>>>>

> Exactly (see above). DVD-compliant MPEG2 is the way to go, just pop
it in &
> watch on TV...

I think we're talking about two seperate subjects here. The intent of
my post and the purpose of providing family members the DVD copies is
to preserve the collection, not to entertain.

Mark
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 6:58:40 PM

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

1) easiest for anyone is to buy a <$140 DVD recorder standalone for the
TV, the plug the VHS into this. Press play on the VHS, record on the
recorder, and walk away for 2 hours. Voila! Easy VHS to DVD transfer.

(If you spend a little more, it's even easier with a all-in-one VHS
+ DVD recorder deck. Just press one button, dub, and you're done.)

This is what I'd recommend if aboslute highest possible video
quality isn't necessary, and ease of use and speed is more important.

2) If you're 'archiving' to DV AVI files, then you may want to wait a
bit for the BlueRay/HD DVD recorders coming in a year or so - they'll
hold ~25-50GB of data, and will easily let you store DV AVIs in their
original format w/o conversion to MPEG-2 or another more compressed
format to fit on a single DVD.

3) If you're converting to MPEG-2 DVDs (standard DVD video), then #1 is
the easiest. Otherwise, just dump the usual 13GB/Hour of video to a HD
(80GB go for <$40 on sale), convert to MPEG-2 and burn to DVDs. Slow,
but if you do it right, you can achieve better quality than #1.

www.videohelp.com and www.deja.com (search DVD conversion/etc.) for
lots of help on this.

4) similar to #1 but converting to MPEG-1/2/4 on-the-fly with similar
lower quality than #3, Plextor.com's line of ConvertX boxes. You dump
the compressed video to HD first, then burn to CD/DVDs later. (You
skip time required by the software compression of #3 above.)

---

Honestly, unless you need to add titles/menus/effects, edit your video,
etc, #1 is the recommendation I'll give. Easy, works, no brainer. The
others? Read up on www.videohelp.com and expect to spend dozens or
hundreds of hours setting up the pipeline and optimizing it.
!