Vegas pro + UtVideo = VHS archiving

Kinemas wrote on 5/16/2017, 7:34 AM

Hi guys.

I am planning to digitize my VHS collection and want to capture video with iuVCR to UtVideo lossless codec for archiving.

My favorite lossless codec was Lagarith for a long time, but for this purpose it is not good. Because I do 95% of all my editing work in Vegas pro and it does not support smart render of Lagarith from the first time. Only from second (when is rendered in Vegas and then opened back). Maybe it is a bug in Lagarith.

So. My input video signal is PAL S-Video YUY2 (4:2:2) and I want to ask some questions:

  1. Should I capture video to UtVideo YUV422 BT.601 VCM or UtVideo RGB VCM?
  2. When I'll want to render my UtVideo 4:2:2 in Vegas to another format, will Vegas send video in untouched color space to the codec, or internaly transformed into RGB (I use Vegas pro 14)?
  3. (From question 2) If Vegas internaly transforms color space to RGB before to send it to the codec, is that transformation better quality than UtVideo its own (when capturing 4:2:2 input to UtVideo RGB VCM)?
  4. Does or not UtVideo codec internal color reconversion, when captures YUY2 (4:2:2) to YUV422 BT.601 VCM?

The last question may sound funny, but UtVideo is new for me and I dont know what to expect from it.

Because Lagarith, when encodes 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 input signal to RGB, does not any color transformation. Just ads a note in file, that it is RGB. The files sizes are the same, like encoded directly to 4:2:2 or 4:2:0.
I am waiting for your answers.

Just remember, that I don't care about files sizes.

The only and most important thing for me is VIDEO QUALITY.

Comments

Musicvid wrote on 5/16/2017, 8:04 AM

NTSC VHS is 4:1:1 (barely). More like 4:1:.5. PAL VHS is 4:2:0.

No improving on that. The slight theoretical advantage of passing already-ugly NTSC reds with 422 is not necessarily a real advantage

The files sizes are the same, like encoded directly to 4:2:2 or 4:2:0

That may show that you are adding air, not bits.

In fact, DV-AVI capture through a firewire device is as good as anything. A light denoise filter may give a slight visual improvement.

The only and most important thing for me is VIDEO QUALITY.

VHS and VIDEO QUALITY are competing terms. You can't unbake the cake.

Kinemas wrote on 5/16/2017, 8:25 AM

NTSC VHS is 4:1:1 (barely)...

... It's VHS. You can't unbake that cake.

Thanks for the answer, but I was asking not about that. :-)

ryclark wrote on 5/17/2017, 6:31 AM

Yes I agree that DV-AVI is more than good enough for digitising S-VHS. And it can pass thought Vegas without being re-rendered, except of course where you may have made changes. The format has more than enough bandwidth etc. for even the best S-VHS.

Musicvid wrote on 5/17/2017, 6:36 AM

Thanks for the answer, but I was asking not about that. :-)

If it seems that mine wasn't a direct answer to your question, I will simplify:

"It doesn't matter. "

You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

¯

Yes I agree that DV-AVI is more than good enough for digitising S-VHS. 

Actually, DV-AVI offers a slight theoretical advantage over 4:2:0 capture of ntsc vhs. See above.

 

Kinemas wrote on 5/18/2017, 4:58 AM

Thanks for the answer, but I was asking not about that. :-)

If it seems that mine wasn't a direct answer to your question, I will simplify:

"It doesn't matter. "

You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

¯

Yes I agree that DV-AVI is more than good enough for digitising S-VHS. 

Actually, DV-AVI offers a slight theoretical advantage over 4:2:0 capture of ntsc vhs. See above.

 

I dont know why are you talking about NTSC, when I wrote clearly, that my material is PAL VHS. :-)

DV is not good for me, because it is LOSSY and 4:2:0. I need to save my 4:2:2 materials in LOSSLESS format. That is because UtVideo codec seems to be the best solution - Vegas does SMART RENDER with it.

And when I say, that video quality is the most important to me, I do not compare VHS and DVD standarts for example. I mean, that I want to save the incoming signal to a capture card without any changes. And no matter what quality that VHS video is itself. :-)

Anyway, thanks for the answers.

ryclark wrote on 5/18/2017, 8:00 AM

What is the point in saving a 4:2:2 when there isn't any x:x:2 info in the original video stream anyway? 😕

Musicvid wrote on 5/18/2017, 8:12 AM

DV is not good for me, because it is LOSSY and 4:2:0. I need to save my 4:2:2 materials in LOSSLESS format.

100% incorrect. You do not have any 4:2:2 "materials."

JJKizak wrote on 5/18/2017, 8:24 AM

The best results for NTSC VHS quality for me was a JVC Super VHS deck with time base correction into my Canopus ADVC 300.

JJK

Kinemas wrote on 5/18/2017, 8:24 AM

DV is not good for me, because it is LOSSY and 4:2:0. I need to save my 4:2:2 materials in LOSSLESS format.

100% incorrect. You do not have any 4:2:2 "materials."

No, man, 100% incorrect you are.

But it is interesting to hear your opinion, why I „do not have“ 4:2:2 materials, when I recorded video trough S-Video 4:2:2 input to lossless codec 4:2:2 color space?

john_dennis wrote on 5/18/2017, 10:29 AM

"why I „do not have“ 4:2:2 materials, when I recorded video trough S-Video 4:2:2 input to lossless codec 4:2:2 color space?"

Even though the hardware and software is capable, the signal from the tape is not capable.

Kinemas wrote on 5/18/2017, 10:44 AM

What is the point in saving a 4:2:2 when there isn't any x:x:2 info in the original video stream anyway? 😕

 

Even though the hardware and software is capable, there signal from the tape is not capable.

When an analog signal (whatever it is) is going through digital capture card, which is YUY2 4:2:2, then it is digitized to that color format. So we are getting that YUY2 4:2:2 material inside capture card – that is what I am talking about. And the next step is when the card sends that digitized signal to a codec.

Former user wrote on 5/19/2017, 10:10 AM

I'm sure this doesn't answer your question Kinemas, in fact I don't understand most of the very erudite answers given, some very smart people here for sure.

For what it's worth, faced with a similar project, some time back, converting old mainly home movies, Sony V8, Vhs and Svhs tapes to digital.

I used an off the shelf capture software, saved to .AVI, in the capture software, I think it was so-called uncompressed, very large files. For distribution then I loaded the .avi's into Vegas and rendered many .mp4 files, Mainconcept 24/20 mb/s .mp4's (probably all overkill) more than good enough for playback on laptops, slates, YT etc.

My thinking is that the quality of these old tapes isn't great anyway, the .avi probably is 99% as good as it gets, the h264 is probably, like jpeg photos going to be supported well into the future.

Playing back the .mp4's looks also not too bad.

I think you also, at the end of the day, need to have a pragmatic approach to it all.

NickHope wrote on 5/19/2017, 10:25 AM

For what it's worth, I have my old PAL Hi8 analog tapes archived as PAL DV. I captured over S-Video to a mini-DV deck and then later captured the tapes with HDVSplit. I think DV or even MPEG-2 is adequate for most purposes but can sympathise with efforts to retain the maximum quality.

Anyway here's the parallel thread for future generations who are interested in the technicalities of the conversion.

Kinemas wrote on 5/19/2017, 1:52 PM

...

Playing back the .mp4's looks also not too bad.

I think you also, at the end of the day, need to have a pragmatic approach to it all.

...

I think DV or even MPEG-2 is adequate for most purposes but can sympathise with efforts to retain the maximum quality.

You are both right.

When I'll want to save my edited work, I'll chose the best codec to fit the end purpose.

But now I want to save my VHS in lossess format for archiving purpose.

I am not capturing my video as the final result. If I would like to do that, I would have bought a VHS-DVD combo recorder. And no headache at all! 😄