Render Settings for VHS (and other)

Denicio wrote on 1/10/2022, 4:54 PM

I am sure this topic has been discussed endlessly here. Alas, i only use Vegas ever so often and rarely attend this forum. I am now working on archiving ALL my home video from years and years of recording. I have two scenarios i would love helpful tips on. Remember, these renders are for family viewing. No need for 4K render settings that would bedazzle Spielberg. Just something sensible for casual family viewing and a setting that does not create huge files.

Here are the two types of video i am needing rendered.

1. Analog VHS and Hi 8 tapes. (Transferred through a Lord Smurf approved system)

2. Digital video from a Canon Vixia HF10.

I am not planning on burning these to DVD. I simply want sensible file sizes that look good so i can put the rendered videos on the cloud for my adult kids to have access to.

What Vegas Render Settings from the pull down render menu do y’all suggest for the two options? Extra tweaks?

I am using Vegas Pro 12 at the moment.

Thanks in advance for any answers on this.

Back to post

Comments

Denicio wrote on 9/11/2022, 2:05 PM

If you recorded at a slower speed/more content on a disk setting, that might be why the resolution is so low.

Yes, many of these tapes are full, top to bottom hence the slower record speed.

I just want to know what is the best Vegas 12 render preset (or custom one) i need to use so i can start rendering these videos.

Denicio wrote on 9/13/2022, 6:18 PM

Here is a dropbox link.

Thoughts?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/90igtx95dadf3ra/VTS_01_1.VOB?dl=0

Musicvid wrote on 9/13/2022, 8:04 PM

Sure. Here is the basic optimal render.

Notice I've left Display Width (DAR) for you to figure.

Once you are comfortable with this workflow, you can play with White Balance, Smart Deinterlace and Upscale later in another thread if you wish. But here's a teaser.

Former user wrote on 9/13/2022, 10:54 PM

I tried staxrip + Neat NR. the noise reduction does not look so good. the ISO noise is gone replaced by what looks like high compression noise due to low bitrate even though there is no low bitrate in the conversion. Neat did object to the noise profile I chose, but it didn't matter where I took the noise print from , it just doesn't like the video. Manual intervention required, which I didn't do.

Denicio wrote on 9/14/2022, 8:18 AM

Sure. Here is the basic optimal render.

Notice I've left Display Width (DAR) for you to figure.

Once you are comfortable with this workflow, you can play with White Balance, Smart Deinterlace and Upscale later in another thread if you wish. But here's a teaser.

As always, i cant thank you enough for taking the time to help me with this!

Now, figuring the DAR is not something i have ever done nor know how to do.

Where do i get this information to plug into that box?

Denicio wrote on 9/14/2022, 8:22 AM

I tried staxrip + Neat NR. the noise reduction does not look so good. the ISO noise is gone replaced by what looks like high compression noise due to low bitrate even though there is no low bitrate in the conversion. Neat did object to the noise profile I chose, but it didn't matter where I took the noise print from , it just doesn't like the video. Manual intervention required, which I didn't do.

I've no idea what a Staxrip or Neat NR is but what you provided looks quite good to my eyes. Sure, there may be other compression artifacts but what you did was an improvement (to me) over the original source.

I dont assume Staxrip or Neat NR is a plugin to use inside of Vegas, is it?

EDIT:

Okay, as i looked into Neat Video and saw a couple of tutorials i realized it looked REAL familiar. After resetting my password with them i was reminded i have already used this before!! (Yeah for me).

Please forgive me and my forgetfulness. If you were to ask me about ANY of my Audio Recording Studio plugins or equipment i could bore you with details for hours on end....without looking at my DAW. Video is a whole different story. Its not a passion its a necessity. Its necessary for Dad (me) to take 30+ years of video recording and Xfr it digitally. I am a Jedi when it comes to audio. Video? I am more of The Apple Dumplin' Gang! Clueless and Clumsy :-)

Still not sure about Straxrip but if i can use Neat Video in Vegas and get half as good of results that you did, then i will be quite happy!

Dexcon wrote on 9/14/2022, 8:37 AM

Neat NR is https://www.neatvideo.com/ likely the best noise reduction plugin available on the market. Under the Purchase options there is a plugin version especially for Vegas Pro.

Musicvid wrote on 9/14/2022, 10:24 AM

In order to deliver late 20th century video technology in the 21st century, it must be deinterlaced and square pixels. It's not optional.

Now, figuring the DAR is not something i have ever done nor know how to do.

Where do i get this information to plug into that box?

My earlier post was not enough to get you started? I'm aghast. It involves prealgebra skills. Denicio, I am a retired teacher, so answers are not free from me.

Basically, you use simple ratio math to convert anamorphic (non-square) to square pixels.

To introduce you to the math, I'd like you to meet my friends, the brothers Sar, Dar, and Par:

DAR / SAR = PAR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_aspect_ratio

Denicio wrote on 9/14/2022, 10:46 AM

In order to deliver late 20th century video technology in the 21st century, it must be deinterlaced and square pixels. It's not optional.

Now, figuring the DAR is not something i have ever done nor know how to do.

Where do i get this information to plug into that box?

My earlier post was not enough to get you started? I'm aghast. It involves prealgebra skills. Denicio, I am a retired teacher, so answers are not free from me.

Basically, you use simple ratio math to convert anamorphic (non-square) to square pixels.

To introduce you to the math, I'd like you to meet my friends, the brothers Sar, Dar, and Par:

DAR / SAR = PAR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_aspect_ratio

There is THAT word..........algebra.........ugh~

I have now broken out in hives and i am running in circles in my office hyperventilating and considering becoming a hermit :-)

And you think i am kidding.

Succinctly stated "all i want to do is render, not math" (ha!). In total honestly, Math is easily my weakest skill as a human. I spent more times with tutors than i did in actual class. I am also a victim of private xtian school so quoting verses are a breeze for me...math, not so much.

In brutal honesty, if i do have to do math on each and ever video i render then it may be a lost cause for me. Sigh.

Musicvid wrote on 9/14/2022, 12:16 PM

Maybe you would have better luck using Handbrake.

Denicio wrote on 9/14/2022, 12:36 PM

Maybe you would have better luck using Handbrake.

I am all ears! Why handbrake over Vegas?

Does handbrake simplify final rendering?

Does handbrake allow for the Neat Video denoiser?

Former user wrote on 9/14/2022, 9:13 PM

Still not sure about Straxrip but if i can use Neat Video in Vegas and get half as good of results that you did, then i will be quite happy!

I should have been more clear about Staxrip, I use it as a GUI for QTGMC, it is a de-interlacing option for converting your 60 fields per second video into 60fps progressive. I thought I had seen a built in method of doing this in Vegas by placing your video on a 59.94fps timeline, and using smart deinterlace or interpolate, but when I tried during playback on timeline I had duplicated frames. I did not try rendering it.,

If you're happy with converting 60 fields to 30fps Vegas is fine but you lose temporal resolution which I think is a big deal, but nobody here cares about it. Your 29.97fps progressive will not be as smooth as your 60 fields per second interlaced video, it doesn't adequately replicate the original in a progressive form. QTGMC won't be perfectly identical either as it's creating full unique frames from each individual field. The standard conversion still seems to be 29.97fps progressive so it's good enough for most.

If you forget about the noise reduction I added you can look at the playback of @Musicvid 's 29.97fps and my 59.94fps version. If they 'feel' the same to you, or you prefer the 29.97fps cadence you can disregard staxrip(QTGMC) completely

3POINT wrote on 9/15/2022, 12:07 AM

Still not sure about Straxrip but if i can use Neat Video in Vegas and get half as good of results that you did, then i will be quite happy!

I should have been more clear about Staxrip, I use it as a GUI for QTGMC, it is a de-interlacing option for converting your 60 fields per second video into 60fps progressive. I thought I had seen a built in method of doing this in Vegas by placing your video on a 59.94fps timeline, and using smart deinterlace or interpolate, but when I tried during playback on timeline I had duplicated frames. I did not try rendering it.,

Be aware that Vegas preview only shows the results of resampling in preview mode good and best. Another preview mode will just show duplicated frames despite the resampling settings.

Denicio wrote on 9/15/2022, 8:41 AM

Still not sure about Straxrip but if i can use Neat Video in Vegas and get half as good of results that you did, then i will be quite happy!

I should have been more clear about Staxrip, I use it as a GUI for QTGMC, it is a de-interlacing option for converting your 60 fields per second video into 60fps progressive. I thought I had seen a built in method of doing this in Vegas by placing your video on a 59.94fps timeline, and using smart deinterlace or interpolate, but when I tried during playback on timeline I had duplicated frames. I did not try rendering it.,

If you're happy with converting 60 fields to 30fps Vegas is fine but you lose temporal resolution which I think is a big deal, but nobody here cares about it. Your 29.97fps progressive will not be as smooth as your 60 fields per second interlaced video, it doesn't adequately replicate the original in a progressive form. QTGMC won't be perfectly identical either as it's creating full unique frames from each individual field. The standard conversion still seems to be 29.97fps progressive so it's good enough for most.

If you forget about the noise reduction I added you can look at the playback of @Musicvid 's 29.97fps and my 59.94fps version. If they 'feel' the same to you, or you prefer the 29.97fps cadence you can disregard staxrip(QTGMC) completely

Todd,

Thanks for your reply on this. To my eyes and for the purposes of these videos (family home video) i am a 'dumb consumer' and see no cadence differences between the two videos provided. Yours, however, with the denoising does look better to my eyes as the snow (noise) is all but gone.

These videos are not for Broadcast TV or for a movie theatre. Its simple archival of family videos. The very fact that you unknowingly reminded me that i have neat video NR is worth its weight in gold! That will make the videos look better.

I just wonder if there is a simple render setting already done in Vegas that i can use that wont force me to have to consult Einstein (tip of the hat to Musicvid's algebra statement).

ALL the videos in question were shot with the same 80's camcorder and all pretty much look the same (as overall quality goes). All have snowy noise.

At the end of the day i just want to archive these videos for my family and put them on hard drives for the kids and on a cloud service for safe backup. I do want them to look good but the sheer volume of tapes i have to transfer and render prevents me from taking a LOT of time with each video render. My hope is i can add the Neat Video DN to clean up the image and then pick a render preset and then let the computer work.