My "ultimate" VHS tape restoration recipe

Comments

vonhosen wrote on 10/7/2003, 3:59 PM
vonhosen wrote on 10/7/2003, 4:03 PM
NRS here

http://neuron2.net/

Just click on search & type in NRS then download

It's version 1.4
The (TS 6-10-100) are settings ;-)
johnmeyer wrote on 10/7/2003, 4:16 PM
I am not familiar with the NRS (TS 6-10-100) plugin. What / where is it?

This is the follow-on to the KNRC filter. It is much improved. Here is the direct link to the download:

NRS Download
farss wrote on 10/7/2003, 4:21 PM
John's idea as I've said before is certainly valid but can I make a slightly lateral cooment.
It only works for noise introduced during the read process. One has to ask why is it there anyway. The answer is crappy gear.
If this is something that you have to do on a regular basis (like restoring old tapes) I'd suggest trying to get hold of one of the old professional VHS decks. One of the ones that had manual everything. It'll probably look like a heap of junk by now and may need a bit of work to get running OK but I'm told they can do a much better job of getting the video back. Remember if they are old tapes many things may have been recorded wrong in the first place, the more manual contol you've got the better chance you have of getting a clean signal off the tape.

The bane of my life is clients who give me VHS copies of VHS tapes, they pay me money and well I've given up trying to convince them there is a better way to do things and they thing the results are just great.
johnmeyer wrote on 10/7/2003, 4:30 PM
Thanks to everyone who has commented on how to improve the multiple pass noise reduction. I also appreciate the several posts on the statistical validity (or lack thereof) of this technique. In reponse to one poster, I tried to find a way to add the two tracks at 100% and then take the result to 50%, but I could never get the result to look right. I finally decided that while this might potentially be mathematically more precise (depending on how the numbers for each pixel are stored internally in Vegas), in practical terms it probably won't make much visual difference, since the noise variations are far larger than the roundoff errors due to truncation.

The most significant addition to my technique was from farss, which anyone who tries this technique should read, namely using the compositing Add feature rather than opacity to achieve the averaging. Here is the direct link to his post:

Averaging Using Compositing
JJKizak wrote on 10/7/2003, 6:03 PM
Most of the time the individual who does not understand the laws of physics makes the impossible breakthrough. Then "they who do" rewrite the laws to conform. Anyway that's what my grandfather says.

JJK

johnmeyer wrote on 10/18/2003, 5:49 PM
I have tweaked the VirtualDub filter chain and am getting even better results.

I now use (in this order)

Giles Mouchard's Chroma Noise Reduction (luma wide 75.00% 15.98% chroma; Chroma 1 100%, 100% chroma; Chroma2 100%, 31.7% chroma; no chroma shift

Donald Graft's Smart Smoother (Diameter 3, Threshold 30, Interlaced Source checked)

Antonio Foranna's Noise Reduction Suite (only the Temporal Smoother enabled, SCD 100%, Dark 6, Light 10, Interlaced checked)

The smart smoother is very slow but, together with the temporal smoother, does a really good job of reducing the noise without eiliminating it. Most other approaches tend to completely eliminate some noise, which makes the remaining noise even more irritating to look at, and also introduces artifacts when things move.

This filter chain does a particularly good job getting rid of rainbows, chroma noise, and the annoying "shimmering" around red objects that NTSC, but especially VHS NTSC, are noted for.
RichMacDonald wrote on 11/3/2003, 10:09 AM
John, it occurred to me that Photoshop and the Grain Surgery plugin might be useful here. You'd have to "train" the plugin for your particular type of noise, but if you've never used it its a brilliant tool.

Actually, I just checked the vendor and they also have a Grain Surgery for video. http://www.visinf.com/gs/ae/
johnmeyer wrote on 11/3/2003, 11:34 AM
Rich,

Thanks for the tip on Grain Surgery. I was not aware of this product. I looked at the still image samples, and it does an impressive job, especially with textured prints, something I have often encountered during my photo restoration work.

I also found this review:

Grain Surgery Review

which confirms that it does a very good job on still images, and shows the results on some heavily textured still photos.

I was unable to find any independent review or anecdote regarding its ability to remove noise from video images. The reviewer quotes on their site pertained almost exclusively to its ability to reduce movie film grain prior to pulldown. I don't have the MOV quicktime player on my PC so I couldn't play their clips. The still images of the noise reductions looked very good indeed (Still Image of Video Grain Reduction.

It is an expensive product ($179 for the Photoshop plugin: $399 for the Movie/DV version). It also only works with these products:

After Effects 4.1 or higher
Final Cut Pro 2 or higher
Commotion 4.1
Avid Express DV (through Elastic Gasket)

I don't have any of these. Thus, as promising as this is, the combination of price and incompatibility with any host application that I own will keep me from trying it. However, as I said above, it looks very promising, if you have the $$$.
RichMacDonald wrote on 11/3/2003, 11:55 AM
>It is an expensive product ($179 for the Photoshop plugin: $399 for the Movie/DV version). It (...doesn't work with Vegas...)

Do you have Photoshop? You could try the grain surgery plugin demo, export the video to stills, batch update the stills with the plugin, then reimport the stills to video.
johnmeyer wrote on 11/3/2003, 12:16 PM
Unfortunately, I do not have Photoshop (I use Ulead Photoimpact, because it is so much faster).
AFSDMS wrote on 11/3/2003, 1:46 PM
FWIW the multi-sampling technique is common with digital imaging. The better Nikon transparency scanners offer sampling of individual 'pixels' from 1 time to 16 times. Then the results of pixel value returned are averaged. 16x scans of course take more time.

The technique works to remove random noise resulting from the electronics in the scanner. Theoretically, random variances in the value (pixel by pixel) returned will tend to cancel themselves out.

When properly applied to video transfers, as was mentioned before, you would only be able to cancel out noise entering the chain after the video playback head. I didn't think there would be that much noise from that point forward in good gear, but there could also be issues of deterioriation in the signal level on the tape. I've never overlaid multiple frames from two different captures to see how much noise was added by the playback electronics.

Something to try?
However, I have overlaid multiple scans on layers in Photoshop to compare differences. One suggestion I would have to see what is different between two frames, is to set the compositing mode to subtract/difference. (Sorry, I don't have V4 in front of me for the exact name in the pulldown.) The result of that is the difference between the frames which if lined up perfectly should be next to nothing, pure black.

In Photoshop I take this composite, which should be close to black, and look at the histogram to see the quantity and distribution of noise. To make it easier to see the actual noise I will adjust with the Curve or Level control.



itp wrote on 1/7/2004, 5:29 AM
That one is very good.

The only question I have ( I'm UNexperienced) how to use filtering in Virtual Dub? To rephrase - how to setup output the way it wouldn't be humongous and would be accepted by Vegas for editing?

I'm really sorry for my 'stupidity'
JohnnyRoy wrote on 1/7/2004, 5:39 AM
The only way to avoid humongous files is to use a codec, preferably a DV codec. You can still find the Panasonic DV codec freely available on the web. I got it with the software for my Panasonic DV camcorder but Panasonic released updates that are freely available to anyone (the filename is pdvcodec.zip). MainConcept also make a DV codec but you have to pay for it. Then in VirtualDub, select Video / Compression... (or just press Ctrl-C) and select the DV codec you installed. This will keep our output files the same size and quality as your input files.

~jr
farss wrote on 1/7/2004, 6:49 AM
John,
thanks. It's nice to know that although a lot of my frineds consider me a fountain of irrelevant facts that someone found some of them useful.

Since you started on this venture I've leant that a lot of things. With any analogue video signal it's much easier and in some cases only possible to fix it in the analogue domain. I've got a few mates who've worked for 30 years in TV who used to keep babling on about all the magic boxes and tricks that they did.
When I got into this game only 12 months ago I used to give them heaps saying all that was so past it. Well I've since learnt a few lessons. Working on restoring VHS tapes has taught me a lot. I've put my money where my mouth should have been and bought an ADVC-300, mostly so I could give my D8 camera a rest.

The guy who gives me the work now complains that I'm doing too good a job. At first I thought it was just idle babble until I started looking at what was coming off the tape versus what was ending up on my DVDs. At first I almost thought I was screwing up somewhere. When I asked one of the old hands they just said well duh!

I don't remember just what kit you've got but if you haven't got something with a TBC in it get one! The other very useful thing in the 300 is 3D Noise Reduction, unlike the 2D NR which it also has this uses a 3 frame buffer to work out what's noise and what isn't. It's not a dramatic improvement but you can sure see it. The 2D stuff is just low pass filtering but again a bit of one and bit of the other and it starts to look a lot better.
Also if you're in NTSC land it's got many smarts that you'll love, 3D Y/C separation and motion compensation for Y/C separation. No use to me I'm afraid.

Anyways time for some rest.
riredale wrote on 2/23/2004, 10:32 PM
Sorry; I just came across this interesting thread from last fall, and wanted to pull it back up top because it should be mentioned that the philosophy of stacking multiple copies of the same noisy image is quite common in some circles. If you get a chance, take a look at www.astrostack.com. The fellow there has a nifty program that is very popular with amateur astronomers.

They have a very serious problem in that the images taken through amateur telescopes are full of "noise" due to atmospheric effects. By stacking dozens of photos and averaging them, the noise portion of the image is greatly reduced, allowing the actual image to appear. The effect is quite magical.

So this technique would seem to work on noise that is created by the process of taking the video from the VHS tape into Vegas. It would have no effect, of course, on video noise that became part of the image in the process of recording to tape in the first place, and I suspect this is where most of the noise originates.
farss wrote on 2/23/2004, 10:49 PM
What the astronomers are doing is a bit different. They're taking mulitple photoes of the same object. Presumably what they want to photograph remians the same in each image but the 'noise' component is random so by averaging the images the noise can be cancelled out. Probably they'd also manage to cancel out the grain in the emulsion as well.
You cannot achieve the same thing by using multiple copies of the same image though. Same thing applies to noise on the VHS tape. As far as I can see nothing could be achieved by using mulitple copies of the some capture. If you can get multiple captures of the same tape then you could cancel out the noise from the heads and video amplifiers etc as it'd be different in pass. You MAY get some benefit by averaging two copies of the same capture and offsetting them by same one frame. This should mean that different noise samples will cancel out however you'll get some blurring of anything that moves.

I've found the 3D noise reduction in the Canopus ADVC-300 works very well. It uses a 3 frame buffer and compares data across them, anything that changes between two frames is deemed noise and removed. I'm certain something must be affected that you wouldn't want to be but the results are very good. Even feeding output from the 8mm telecine through it, it seems to succeed in averaging out some of the grain in the film.
johnmeyer wrote on 2/24/2004, 9:54 AM
You cannot achieve the same thing by using multiple copies of the same image though. Same thing applies to noise on the VHS tape. As far as I can see nothing could be achieved by using mulitple copies of the some capture. If you can get multiple captures of the same tape then you could cancel out the noise from the heads and video amplifiers etc as it'd be different in pass. You MAY get some benefit by averaging two copies of the same capture and offsetting them by same one frame. This should mean that different noise samples will cancel out however you'll get some blurring of anything that moves.

The multiple pass technique works wonders with the "snow" noise that is not part of the signal on the tape, but instead is due to the weakness of the signal from the video tape (much like pulling in a distant TV station). The "dots" that make up this snow are in different places in each capture. If you could do enough captures (before the tape wore out) and averaged them, the noise would totally disappear, and you would be left but nothing but signal. The signal (i.e., the real picture) would not be degraded at all.

In the real world, where time constraints limit this technique to just a few passes, the noise is reduced, but not eliminated.
Steve672 wrote on 2/24/2004, 12:17 PM
Pinnacle Studio 9 boasts "Analog Cleaning--Restore old videotapes ". Has anybody read any reviews on this or tried them? I was just wondering in case this portion of the software was useful then one may use it in their armamentorium to fix up their VHS tapes

Steve
mstrg wrote on 6/18/2004, 2:56 AM
Capturing with a Canopus 1394 onto fast disks with either V5 or SCLive I get no dropped frames, but when I line up the duplicates I find that after 3 minutes the tracks are off by as much as 20 frames. Maximizing the audio track height helps in syncing the video, but in my first attempt there were 9 sync points in just 3 min video. Is this normal? If so, can someone explain just what is going on with the VHS signal to account for this or am I missing something basic - I'm new to V5/NLE.
farss wrote on 6/18/2004, 4:14 AM
That does sound like a lot of drift, still with analogue machines you can get some drift. The problem is that they're not locked to a precise reference. My best method for cleaning up VHS is to use an ADVC-300, also from Canopus. Between the Time Base Correction and the dynamic noise reduction I usually get a picture that looks much better than what comes out of the VHS player.
The technique that John has developed I think relies upon being able to line of the same frames on two tracks. If your VHS machine is drifitng that much I can see you're going to have a few problems.
mstrg wrote on 6/18/2004, 6:48 AM
Too many to make it worthwhile. These are 25 yr old tapes. I bought a new JVC HRS3902 Super VHS just for this project, so I am a little disappointed. Is that what old tapes do - if that's the case, then maybe 24fps capture would be a partial solution? For the record, I wish I had done more homework - I would have sprung for the extra bucks on the ADVC300 - but then I wouldn't have had any reason to upgrade from V3LE to V5 - instead I'd be in the Premiere camp.
farss wrote on 6/18/2004, 7:28 AM
OK,
a few things to consider. VHS isn't that great to start with. Secondly the tapes might not have been that well recorded to start with. Thirdly, I'm not familiar with that model JVC, does it have a built in TBC and DNR? If it does then the 300 isn't going to do much better. If it doesn't are you getting things like line tearing or the top of the picture wobbling? If that's happening then yes the TBC in the 300 will go a long way to eliminating that.
If it's got to the stage where you're getting dropouts in the tape, they look like flashes along the scan lines, the 300 will not help with that. To get rid of that you need I think a machine with drop out compenstation and they are expensive. Also you cannot fix that problem in the digital domain. Drop out compensation looks at the RF signal coming off the heads, if it sees a loss of signal it inserts a bit of video from the line above, not a perfect fix but better than nothing.
I'd also say 25 years is a long time. The results you get depend on many factors, how good was the source material, how good was the VCR making the recording and how well have the tapes been looked after. Before trying to play any old tapes it can help to wind the all the way to the end and back again and do several passes, capturing each one. You MAY need to clean the heads, old tapes can start to shed the oxide and clog the heads but once you get off the loose stuff you may get a better signal, or maybe it'll get worse, that's why you keep capturing, sometimes you'll find one bit captured OK on the first pass and fell apart on the second but another bit came good.

It's a bit hard to give much more advice withour knowing how bad what you're getting is and what's wrong with it.
I've put a LOT of time into old UMatic tapes, some of them I got lucky with, others are just GONE!
Oh yes, forget about 24fps, you'll have to capture at whatever they were recorded at. If they're film transfers then you maybe able to do the pulldown removal trick BUT I don't see how that's going to help with any of your problems.
johnmeyer wrote on 6/18/2004, 8:02 AM
mstrg,

Yes, the tape may drift because tape speed control is done via an analog control track signal and this does not in any way guarantee exactly the same speed every time.

The "ultimate" part of my tape restoration referred to the multiple capture. I ended up doing it a few times, but finally decided that unless I am doing something like the Zabgruder tapes (the 8mm of Kennedy's assasination), it probably isn't worth the HUGE investment in time(although the results are MUCH better than any digital noise reduction, and there are absolutely no artifacts -- the picture simply gets less noisy).

For most of my VHS restoration, I capture using the best possible deck, with the edit switch on (VERY important). If you have a TBC, use it. Once captured, I then use VirtualDub to copy the footage from my capture drive to my edit drive. I use (in this order) Giles Mouchard's Chroma Noise Reduction (luma wide 75.00% 15.98% chroma; Chroma 1 100%, 100% chroma; Chroma2 100%, 31.7% chroma; no chroma shift; and Noise Reduction Suite (NRS) 1.4 with only the Temporal Smoother enabled, and Dark Pixels set to 6 and Bright Pixels set to 10. Make sure you check the Interlaced box. This temporal filtering is subtle, but I cannot detect any filter-induced artifacts. I have gone up to twice these values on footage with little movement, and the filterning becomes quite good. However, on fast moving scenes the artifacts are way too noticeable and therefore you are better off doing less filtering.

I have also experimented with the Spot Reduction filter, although it is extremely complicated to master.