Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
6th October 2004, 11:31 | #2 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 454
|
u should use a s-vhs recorder with a digital TBC and some enhancement-techniques, such as newer JVC oder Panasonic do have. those get rid of some noise and re-allign the jitter in the picture.
Using a good TV-Card with s-video input, u can capture using vble codec in 704/720x576 resolution (480, if itīs NTSC). Then crop, filter with avisynth and re-encode using a very good mpeg2-encoder such as cce (expensive!!), tmpgenc oder maybe a variant of ffmpeg (such as in ffdshow/ffvfw oder quenc). This should give best results. |
6th October 2004, 12:02 | #6 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 454
|
yes, it still is, but it is capable of storing in yu12, so the filesize is much smaller Although it might be a quality-issue keeping more of the chroma information for further filtering, so to be on the "safe side", Iīd use huffyuf as well.
|
6th October 2004, 13:21 | #7 | Link | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
And could you clarify, the advantage of using VBLE is that it captures in yu12(?) colourspace which is the same as avisynth uses, so if you are using avisynth to filter your raw capture before encoding, there is no loss in quality because there is no conversion from one colourspace to another? I currently use huffyuv for the capture codec and VirtualDub to do the filtering, but I really want to learn avisynth. |
|
6th October 2004, 13:56 | #8 | Link | |||
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 6,364
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Wilbert; 6th October 2004 at 14:00. |
|||
6th October 2004, 14:06 | #9 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 454
|
Quote:
Even if u capture a movie-source from a vhs-tape, it still is interlaced. Of course, if u have a "perfect" source and a very good TBC, the picture visually looks porgressive. I accidently captured some Material as progrssive and it went well, but as soon as u have some jitter left or itīs a bad film transfer (NTSC->PAL), u have the interlaced-artefacts again. One "tweak" could be to restore the progressive frames via ffvfw before compressing, but this takes up a lot of cpu-power and in case something goes wrong, u have to do it all again. So I recommend capturing as interlaced an process it later. |
|
6th October 2004, 14:31 | #10 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 6,364
|
Quote:
The problem with using a YV12 codec for capping is that you have to know in advance whether it is interlaced or "progressive". |
|
6th October 2004, 22:30 | #12 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 6,364
|
Quote:
I never have really thought about it (because I'm a pal guy), but it seems to me, that it is not possible to do a proper YUY2->YV12 subsampling on telecined material. If you do progressive subsampling then two out of every five are subsampled incorrectly (ie averaging chroma of different fields). Comments anyone? |
|
13th October 2004, 05:41 | #14 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 454
|
Quote:
Using a MJPEG encoder like the DC-Series oder Fasts Capture-Card, u donīt have the possibility to capture "lossless", so youīll always have to deal with JPEG-Artefacts (which of course, are not that big a deal when using low compression levels). In need of max. quality, Iīd still recommend a TV-Card with very-good A/D-section and capturing in hufyuf. |
|
13th October 2004, 05:49 | #15 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 454
|
Quote:
"hardware digital compression" is not a very technical term, imho, itīs just like: "computers have digital power"... hrm.... I guess all Canopus wants to try to say, that compression is done in hardware, not software, so this is noc quality Issue, itīs just an advantage for LOW-Power-CPUs. After trying for years, I figured the Source to be the most "difficult" Part in the whole process. Using a TBC and the proper S-VHS Player for my Material gave so much quality back, using MJPEG oder hufyuf oder DV doesnīt even compare in terms of "making a difference". So get a very good Playback-machine, thatīs the most important part. In most casese, u should do some filtering (this oneīs the most tricky part of all!!). Using DV or MJPEG introduces too many artifacts, so if u filter after capture, stick to hufyuv. If u donīt filter at all an encode with procoder, cce, ffmpeg oder tmpgenc (all decent encoders), then using DV or MJPEG doesnīt make that much of a difference to a hufyuf-source. |
|
13th October 2004, 13:31 | #16 | Link | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The NW corner of Lake Erie
Posts: 5,552
|
Remember Rule 12, folks. Asking "what's best?" can be divisive. Let's keep this discussion calm, please.
Quote:
__________________
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased." Kehlog Albran, The Profit |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|