Converting 50+ vhs tapes to dvd - best way?

[280zx]

I have over 50 aging vhs tapes that I want to convert to dvd for preservation. Family video stuff. I'm willing to spend around $300 USD. What would produce the best results easily and quickly?

I'm considering getting a hardware mpeg2 encoder card to save a lot of encoding time. Good idea? What are some good choices? I was thinking about the hauppage WinTV-PVR-250.

I'm also considering buying a minidv camcoder and using the passthrough function to convert the vhs to dv. Good results?

I have a 3.2 ghz p4 and plenty of hd space. I also have a Hauppauge WinTV-dbx capture card but I don't really want to spend the hours it would take to encode/filter/tweak to get good results with that card. I've also never found a good step by step guide for post processing the raw avi files.

[rfmmars]

What I have used is ATI Aiw Cards 8500dv and the 9000. I find this is the most flexable, with the ability to capture in most any format. To you to use with Virtualdub and spinoffs you will need the VFW2WDM wrapper.

Price is $179.95 US Image quality is on par with DV.avi I use these in my video three workstations at my business.

There are good and bad reports on the PVR-250

richard
www.photorecall.net

[sarahjh69]

DO NOT
buy a hardware encoder card....the results are rubbish!
PCs are just not designed to do this job properly.

Go out and buy a standalone dvd recorder Philips dvdr70 or 75
or a Panasonic if you prefer them. They do a really good job and
will cost less than $300. If you buy a encoder card you will be
very sorry!

[rfmmars]

Sorry but that is simply NOT TRUE!!! If if was, why are you here?

richard
www.photorecall.net

[cpurs]

standalone dvd recorder is

new in box

on clearence at my local sams club for 200 bucks !!!

must be some newer models coming in ????

[sarahjh69]

I have a Philips dvdr75 (uses +r and +rw)
and a box of verbatim +rw, the same 10 disks are used
repeatedly, all editing is done on my pc.
The Vobs created by the recorder read directly into
DVD Author and you can edit to your hearts content
and add menus before writing to dvdr.

rfmmars
"why am I here" what a silly response, from a newbie!
Why don't you tell us what you know about the subject
instead of dissing someone who have been on the scene far longer.
I have spent a fortune trying to record video on my PC using, ATI, Hauppage, and other capture cards along with raid scsi HD arrays.....all failures. Yet a standalone recorder (and video stabiliser for macrovision tapes) produce perfect results everytime. Why make life hard for yourself go and get the right tool for the right job.

[sarahjh69]

I have RGB output on my VCR
and it was the cheapest in the shop.

not sure s-vhs will make any difference
go with what you've got.

[BruceL]

My VCR (Philips VR960) has Composite and S-Video. S-Video is definitely superior to Composite. I would never consider using Composite again. Hope this helps.

(I had previously stated S-VHS where it says S-video above)

[bb]

This is a very common error: S-VHS is not the same as S-Video. BruceL, you are talking about S-Video, which is clearly better than Composite, because luminance and chrominance signals are separated.

I don't believe that playing a VHS video on an S-VHS recorder will improve quality, though. Maybe S-VHS recorders have better electronics inside which make you believe that, but a regular VHS recorder with the same circuits will deliver the same quality.

bb

[Arachnotron]

I don't believe that playing a VHS video on an S-VHS recorder will improve quality, though. Maybe S-VHS recorders have better electronics inside which make you believe that, but a regular VHS recorder with the same circuits will deliver the same quality.

I disagree with that. ordinary VHS tape stores luma and chroma almost separately. Chroma is modulated down (color under) and only a tiny area overlaps with the luma. Still, on playback, chroma and luma are separate. To make composite, chroma and luma are joined again by a normal VHS VCR. Your card has to split them up again, which causes the quality loss.

So to be accurate, it is not so much that S-VHS VCR's are better, they just prevent the damage an extra round of combfiltering in your cap device does when it has to separate a composite signal produced by a standard VHS VCR.

I tried it by simply capping both s-video and composite from my deck. s-video is better. It is not earth-shattering, but the quality difference is there.

[BruceL]

Opps, I was rushing this morning. I meant to say S-Video. I will edit my post. Sorry for the confusion. :eek:

[BruceL]

@280zx

After you get your new VCR with the "S-Video" output up and running, let us know how it compares with your other VCRs with "Composite" outputs. I would bet you will see a noticeable improvement with image quality.

Enjoy! :)

[rfmmars]

@ sarahjh69

rfmmars
"why am I here" what a silly response, from a newbie!
Why don't you tell us what you know about the subject


I been doing NLE for 11 years so I don't think I am a newbie.

Phillips products are at the bottom of the quality curve while Panasonic produce good video but fall apart fairly quickly, plus they all will become obsolite when the HD units arrive.

I am sorry that you can't get computers to work for youself but many others have no problems at all. I have done production work for Discovery Cannel, UPN network, NHK Japan just to mention a few.

Do you think that stand alones have something magic inside that computers don't? Its not fair to give the newbie who posted the question that type information when it is simplly is not true. A better way would have been " I prefer a atand alone"

A extra un needed recompress does not lead to quality.

As you have found out, he wants to edit, so do it right in the first place, inside the PC.

....................

Most S-VHS machine will play VHS tapes better. I use the JVC 9900U. It has digital noise processing,a TBC, and a dropout compensator plus much much more all for $499.95 US.

richard

[280zx]

Originally posted by rfmmars


A extra un needed recompress does not lead to quality.

As you have found out, he wants to edit, so do it right in the first place, inside the PC.




I'm probably going to be editting them as outlined here (http://www.dvdguideuk.dsl.pipex.com/dvdguide/editing1/editing1.htm), unless I come across something better, so I shouldn't need to recompress what the recorder produces. Nothing drastic, just basic menus leading to the various scenes on the dvd. I wouldn't have gone with the stand alone recorder if I had to recompress to edit/add menus.

I probably should have researched the recorders more thoroughly but I'm sure this one will do an acceptable job. If not I'll send it back to amazon and get a different one.

[rfmmars]

That was a fast reply. I want to point out that there can be a audio sync isuee when dealing with .VOB files editing them as MPEG2.

You can some times get around it by using DVD2AVI but again you are transcoding.

Depending on your VCR tape quality, you may want to do more editing like filtering. I like you have alot of tapes, mine somewhere in the 900 area, and these were made as far back as 1977.

Each tape has its own flaws, so my point is why add another one to it. One thing stand alone do better is that they are fast.

Anyway good luck and have fun which ever way you go.

richard

[sarahjh69]

dvd author does no recoding/transcoding to the .vob
files from the Philips machine I have, it merely
moves the original video and audio around. They are
edited as .vob files and never become mpeg2 files

The only time taken is that needed to move from one file
on the HD to another. (edit from one HD to another and the
process is 2x as fast)

[ThunderCrush]

this is a good topic for me, I am interested to find out what people use. Here is a newbies thought because I can't talk tech but I have eyes like everyone here and a brain that needs just simple programs that gives respectable results. That DVD recorder Idea maybe something to look at but you still have to edit your dvd on your computer. So why not go direct to your computer and record in MPEG-2 format?

My set up is I bought a ASUS VIVO graphics card that way I can play games and do video if I want on my computer, plus it was only $160
I go out from the composite of the VCR/Satbox straight to the input of the Video adapter for the ASUS Graphics card. I go out of the audio to my soundblaster live card witch was only $35 My video card has s-video and composit inputs and outputs so you can choose what you want. Nice graphics card, can't see why I would want to spend more for an ATI all and wonder.

Next some software. I like WinDVD recorder if you want to record straight to mpeg-2. There maybe better programs for this so I am all ears and will try anything but so far I can't get an avi file using virtualmod with avisyth filters to give me a noticably better video.
So why waste all that time and headache. But if you want to do the virtualmod edit way that is great too.

Next for editing mpeg-2 I like Womble MPEG-VCR I tested the Womble 2003wizard or whatever is there latest version and I couldn't figure it out. So I will stick to the MPeg-VCR version. This to me is the easiest way to edit MPEG-2 video. Some people say it causes sync problems but the only time I have sync problems I make short clips of the video like 20-30 min clips. Normally 99% I can do 2hr 20min VHS
tape with out any problems.
I am into recording my favorite NFL football team. Anyone try to edit a sports game? Because that is some serious commercial editing and I have no problems getting a nice looking DVD.

If you are doing old VHS you maybe new like me and all I can say is virtualmod and avisyth filters to help clean up the video. That a whole new world and all you get from that world is you have to try it and did you look a FAQ#blablabla

Next TMPGEnc Author to author your DVD's
add your movie or your clips and bam author it to DVD VOB
and a last a burn program like nero. I don't like TMPGE author burn program never burns right for me.

[rfmmars]

Thanks for the clarafacation on the .VOB file editing. As you might know, a .VOB file is really already an MPEG2 file with a different extension and has some differences from a standard MPEG2 standard.
Those properties then can lead to audio offset, linera and non-linera after editing.

Those problems come up sometime but not always when doing filtering / rendering with Avisynth and Virtualdub.

So all of the confusion I guess really is what each person defines as editing. For me I want to do as much cleanup as possible before burning.

Thanks again for your reply,

richard

[MrTVideo]

Getting back to the crux of this post, which is converting old vhs tapes to dvd. I am retired and desperatly waiting for a DVD recorder to hit $AUD250. but with my P3 800m system I can create copies in SVCD ALMOST as good, and there is the rub, no copy can ever be as good as the original. But to edit there has to be the conversion from vhs to mpeg2. I use a DC10 (Pinnacle) capture card which gives a pretty good mjpeg copy, editing is done prior to convertion except transitions titles etc. For titles and special effects I use Studio 8. Result. Slight quality reduction only recognised by me. but at least I have the copies (crossed fingers) that will not deteriate.
If I had a dvd Recorder I would achieve a better result but would still follow this procedure.

[snn47]

SVHS VCR
There can be more benefits from some SVHS VCR like
Time Base Corrector (JVC)
Digital Noise Reduction or
Comb Filter if you have PAL-VCR.

They can't improve what has not been recorded but help you get the best possible signal for grabbing.

Since I am not convinced of present DVDR or grabber I still use (S)VCD Recorder (Amoisonic VDR200) to convert (S)VHS-tapes on CDR(W) and then archive/store them on a DVD.

[sh03z]

Next some software. I like WinDVD recorder if you want to record straight to mpeg-2. There maybe better programs for this so I am all ears and will try anything but so far I can't get an avi file using virtualmod with avisyth filters to give me a noticably better video.
So why waste all that time and headache. But if you want to do the virtualmod edit way that is great too.


Capturing to avi is better in my humble opinion, but only if you use a good quality codec like LEADtools MJPEG, or the free one HUFFYUV. You can also use filters etc, like you were saying.

@sarahjh69
That is a great idea about encoding directly to VOBs...I have never tried that myself.
I use virtualdub (no mods nothing) with a framerate of 29.9697 to capture stuff like home videos, then I use the software that came with my computer to encode it etc.
Also, do you mean capture card or encoder card? Do you call these things the same thing???

Also, would SVIDEO be better than composite for lets say TV input?

Thanks,

If I missed anything sorry, I read things in a hurry =D

-Mike

[Brent212]

I haven't seen any non-SVHS VCR's that have S-Video output (though I wouldn't be surprised if they exist). The reason I would get an SVHS VCR would be for the S-video output, not the ability to play SVHS tapes.

I also am converting a lot of VHS tapes to DVD, and am currently using a "regular" VCR with a composite output, but would like to see how much the quality would improve by using one with an S-Video output. If anyone could tell me where I can find a VCR (SVHS or not) that has an S-Video output and costs under $100, that'd be very cool.

[snn47]

The quality comes mainly from the HW inside. At least when I looked for one many SVHS-VCR couldn't compete with the better standard VHS-VCR, while the better heads and electtronics inside a SHS-VCR could even improve quality in VHS mode above what was available from VHS-VCR.

Unless you know that just the SVHS output was added (=the Quality and HW is identical) it won't be a fair comparison nor will it give you the insight you're looking for.

Everytime you split/combine the luminanz, chrominanz and syc information you get a degredation in quality, if it's in the VCR or in aa circuit past it unless you have means to compensate the loss like comb filter for PAL.

[sh03z]

@Brent212

I just bought a S-VHS VCR deck for the same reason.
Here's the site:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

The one I bought was under Video - Consumer,
and it was a little more than 100$ with shipping etc.

You can sort by price or by brand, to find a cheaper one than mine if you want.

have a good 1

[keithmac]

Just digging up an old thread!

I use a JVC S-VHS video with output to a Philips DVDR70 (got a 75 as well for the I-link) Quality is very good, on s-vhs and good vhs tapes.

Easiest way round it, you can leave the video chewing away while you use the computer for other things, copy the dvd`s onto the computer, a few menues with TMPGEnc DVD author and you`re away! no sync problems editing with DVD Author. Plus you can rip the tapes, leave them on +rw`s and when you`ve finished blank the disk and do another.

[Sergei_Esenin]

Prevailing wisdom is that an S-VHS VCR is preferable for VHS playback because the Y/C data is kept separate by using S-Video instead of a recombined composite. Since Y and C are essentially recorded to (mostly) seperate tracks in VHS (after a comb-filtering step since the original source in VHS duplicators is always composite input), this makes sense--recombining to composite on playback introduces another layer of composite artifacts that wouldn't be there with S-Video output. No VHS decks, to my knowledge, have ever had S-Video output--only composite, even on high-end VHS editors like Panasonic's $1,400 AG-W3.

However, someone on AVS Forum recently said that he wrote to Panasonic--maker of some of the best pro-level VHS and S-VHS decks ever--and received a response from someone in their Broadcast Division stating that the best VHS playback is always from pro/industrial VHS VCRs with full .58 micron heads because S-VHS VCRs have a much smaller head gap that can't access the full RF envelope. In the discussion at AVS many, myself included, expressed doubt that the benefits of optimized heads could completely outweigh the benefits of not reintroducing new composite artifacts. But it does raise interesting questions, especially since refurbished and warranted industrial VHS decks with full 58 micron heads can be found on eBay fairly affordably. Note though that regular home VHS VCRs typically have only .30 micron heads, to enable EP recording speed, so aren't comparable to the pro VHS decks with full-sized heads.

I wish I could afford both S-VHS (maybe JVC 6600 or higher or Panasonic AG-7350) and industrial VHS (maybe Sony SVO-960) decks to do comparison captures with, but I can't. I recently bought a rare Sony ED-Beta deck which ate all my A/V budget... But if anyone could afford to make such a comparison it would be interesting indeed.

[2Bdecided]

Surely VHS has a luma bandwidth of 3MHz, and a chroma bandwidth of less than 1MHz?

So, when the chroma is put back up to 4.43MHz (for a PAL system) there is no overlap between this information and the luminance information. There will be a gap between 3MHz and 3.5MHz which contains nothing at all - you could separate the luma and chroma perfectly with simple low- and high-pass filters cutting in the middle of this band.

Capture cards, TVs etc may not do this (though I believe some TVs do - dropping out of "comb filter" mode down to a simple filter when they detect VHS sources), but an S-video connection isn't giving you more or better information than a composite connection when replaying a VHS tape - at least not in theory.

In practice, how good each output is on a particular VCR, and how a particular capture card will handle each input, is anyone's guess! If using an S-video connection gives a better picture in practice, then obviously do it - but doesn't the theory say there's no advantage?

In short: there is no cross colour - cross colour is where the chroma and luma information exist in the same region of the video spectrum and cannot be separated cleanly - this can't happen with a VHS source because the bandwidth of both signals is too low for them to overlap.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here!

Cheers,
David.

[Arachnotron]

So, when the chroma is put back up to 4.43MHz (for a PAL system) there is no overlap between this information and the luminance information. There will be a gap between 3MHz and 3.5MHz which contains nothing at all - you could separate the luma and chroma perfectly with simple low- and high-pass filters cutting in the middle of this band.
I think you are right in assuming the issue is larger with NTSC than it is with PAL. I'm not sure it is completely gone for PAL. Anyway:

- for consumer grade VCR's, S-VHS usually also means high-end, better components, digital filters, TBC's etc;

- Neither the cut-off of the luma signal nor the Chroma signal is sharp making both signals extend beyond 3 resp 3.5 MHz. I have been searching all over the web for some documentation on this but most people seem to focus on NTSC (where there is an overlap) and quoting each other :(. Simple high- and low pass filters also don't have a sharp cut-off so it may be that even for PAL VHS, luma and chroma may influence each other.
(Anyone got the official VHS specs anywhere by the way? :) )

- When you deliver a s-video signal to a capcard, each signal is digitized using a separate ADC, effectively doubling the number of samples for the chip to work with. This will result in extra quality too.
Capture cards, TVs etc may not do this (though I believe some TVs do - dropping out of "comb filter" mode down to a simple filter when they detect VHS sources), but an S-video connection isn't giving you more or better information than a composite connection when replaying a VHS tape - at least not in theory.

Modern cards all claim to have adaptive comb filters. When comparing the same pics captured on different devices I have found there are huge differences between devices. (I don't have the pics any more, I have to repeat this one day)

I have done some comparisons between my VHS VCR (a good quality Philips, but not pro stuff) and my s-VHS deck. AFAIKS the S-VHS gives me the better quality in the end. What I never tried was to capture composite from both; any difference there would be the result of quality differences between the recorders.

[Sergei_Esenin]

Originally posted by Arachnotron
I have done some comparisons between my VHS VCR (a good quality Philips, but not pro stuff) and my s-VHS deck. AFAIKS the S-VHS gives me the better quality in the end.

I'm sure that almost any S-VHS deck will give better performance for VHS playback than any consumer VHS VCR, if only because of higher quality electronics and built-in noise reduction. But both will have a smaller head gap than the optimal 58 microns used in pro/industrial VHS machines. I have no idea if it would make a real difference, mind you--I've only heard that statement I mentioned from Panasonic's Broadcast Division.

If I could afford it I'd love to buy a refurbished industrial VHS machine and an external TBC and comb filter, and compare it to a good S-VHS machine to see if there are noticeable improvements with either. Alas, I can afford one or the other, but not both...